Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 02 February 2010 15:37 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 808AC3A6885 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.883
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, 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 4Cc6g+kd1xd6 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-px0-f186.google.com (mail-px0-f186.google.com [209.85.216.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C045C3A6801 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pxi16 with SMTP id 16so166862pxi.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:38:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.248.36 with SMTP id v36mr4025786wfh.228.1265125094055; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:38:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B683AE4.3080606@corry.biz>
References: <7789133a1001220050m56cc438x35099b7972639331@mail.gmail.com> <4B59B834.3030500@gmail.com> <4C374A2653EB5E43AF886CE70DFC567213CE9BE2B4@34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <7789133a1002012300k4627d9a2sad7f5b776c544487@mail.gmail.com> <4B683AE4.3080606@corry.biz>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:37:53 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a1002020737i47869b98m76844aacb225d1ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies
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, 02 Feb 2010 15:37:41 -0000

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote on 2/1/2010 11:00 PM:
>> I've added the following text to the server section, as recommend by
>> Dan Winship:
>>
>>               <t>WARNING: Some legacy user agents treat an absent Domain
>>               attribute as if the Domain attribute were present and contained
>>               the current host name. For example, if example.com returns a
>>               Set-Cookie header without a Domain attribute, these user agents
>>               will send the cookie to www.example.com.</t>
>
>
> Is it "example.com" that assumes "www.example.com"?  Or "www.example.com" assumes "www.example.com"?  Or both?

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you phrase it more
operationally (in terms of who sends which messages to whom)?

Adam