Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Tue, 04 August 2009 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 A07DA28C2C3 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 5VavNpH3JGoj for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kluster1.contactor.se (kluster1.contactor.se [91.191.140.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585603A6A0F for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux2.contactor.se (linux2.contactor.se [91.191.140.14]) by kluster1.contactor.se (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n747ElB4003311; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:14:48 +0200
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:14:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@linux2.contactor.se
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908040911070.15554@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908040015310.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im> <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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 07:14:50 -0000

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Adam Barth wrote:

> The "Informational" status does not appear appropriate for this document 
> because the Internet community seems to have reached consensus about the 
> behavior of the Cookie and Set-Cookie header as evidenced by billions of 
> such headers traveling over the Internet between hundreds of implementations 
> every day.

As on author of one of those hundreds, I for sure would've appreciated the 
existance of such a document when I started my work.

If clarifying the existing practise isn't what you want to see, what exactly 
do you want?

Both RFC2109 and 2965 failed because they tried to engineer a new cookie 
concept that no author was interested in. I don't see how craftning yet 
another new thing has any better chance this time, so the "only" remaining 
work is instead documenting how things actually work today.

Or what am I missing?

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se