IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Updated draft

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sun, 16 August 2009 17:32 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 5799E3A6D81 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.638, BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 zYGP8GvVJekS for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f196.google.com (mail-vw0-f196.google.com [209.85.212.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8966C28C0E9 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws34 with SMTP id 34so2252480vws.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.13.210 with SMTP id d18mr3888227vca.36.1250443960159; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908161440520.25988@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
References: <7789133a0908151008p35ff30e6w2761368fe70d41a6@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908152250410.18461@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908151642w47c1dbf1x48268e657b0d71cc@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908161440520.25988@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:20 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0908161032l2265ce5fg966c434f1b05aa64@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Updated draft
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: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:32:38 -0000

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Stenberg<daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> Hm, ok. It would be very interesting if you can come up with real-world
> cases where this is actually enforced/checked since curl doesn't do any
> sorting of this kind and I would be surprised if all other cookie
> implementations do.

I've added tests for both these behaviors to the test suite.  Here's
how the five most popular browser behave:

Sort first based on path length:
* IE
* Firefox
* Safari
* Chrome
* Opera

Sort second on creation time:
* IE
* Firefox
* Chrome
* Opera

Sort second based on cookie name:
* Safari

Based on this data, it seems reasonable to spec "sort first on path
length and sort second on creation time."  I don't think we'd want to
spec any other ordering, and I don't see the benefit of not specing
the ordering in the user agent conformance section.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email