Re: [http-state] algorithm definitions
=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Sat, 24 July 2010 06:07 UTC
Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.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 0FA473A697F for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.259, BAYES_20=-0.74, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 GLkvrOH96zgt for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D6EA93A692C for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32340 invoked by uid 0); 24 Jul 2010 06:07:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2010 06:07:28 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=XgubjzVQ0m9TP9gKVgZpUrqpiFI4+8hxXglEinaJfw0hPUmYOVd5Dw1S70YSBoq9UpHS9/HXS61TINDoalxLnpCZVymS9NNDw2r6TkKjjwwN31SFOtSltn2p2Ej9HpgU;
Received: from c-24-4-122-173.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.122.173] helo=[192.168.11.10]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1OcXtQ-0002kd-14 for http-state@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:07:28 -0600
Message-ID: <4C4A831D.1030408@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:07:25 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.4.122.173 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: Re: [http-state] algorithm definitions
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: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:07:13 -0000
<speaking as chair> WRT this disagreement on the algorithmic presentation of the user agent requirements in draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie, Peter Saint-Andre (our AD) and I've discussed it, and we feel it is a stylistic issue. Meaning that there's nothing inherently wrong in the current presentation, as far as we know. That doesn't mean that the current presentation is equally palatable to all potential readers, which seems to be the underlying contention. We want to resolve this in the near term so we can move forward on getting this spec to IETF-wide last call. This will be an item of discussion during our Maastricht httpstate session; if you are not going to be there in person and you wish to contribute your insight, please do so on the list. =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] algorithm definitions Bjoern Hoehrmann
- [http-state] algorithm definitions Julian Reschke
- Re: [http-state] algorithm definitions Adam Barth
- Re: [http-state] algorithm definitions =JeffH