IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 04 August 2009 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@adambarth.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACAB3A6BFE for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83Ww9-WeClip for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com (mail-yx0-f173.google.com [209.85.210.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE603A6AF0 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe3 with SMTP id 3so4801048yxe.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.136.5 with SMTP id j5mr535021ybd.109.1249346103109; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:34:43 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0908031734p5288e13fl50d6954824cb60e8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state charter
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:35:05 -0000

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Dan Winship<dan.winship@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm... maybe we could do it by producing a "cleaned up" cookie spec, with
> an appendix explaining the various ways that real-world implementations
> deviate from the spec?

This approach would start us down the same path that has doomed
previous cookie RFCs to the dust bin of uselessness.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email