Re: [http-state] draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-05 posted

[David Morris <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > It has been reserved, should be reserved, and seems to be only used *very*
> > rarely...
> 
> We're only supposed to require user agents to do things that are
> already widely implemented.  I'll happily add this requirement if user
> agents widely implement it, but that's not the case currently.
> There's a bunch of stuff in RFC 2109 that's been "reserved" and
> "should be reserved" but the reality today is that it isn't reserved.

I interpret 'reserved' as an advisory term ... it doesn't place any new
requirement on User Agents but does warn the world that use is not 
considered appropriate. Since it is apparently know who some of the
design firms are, it might be a good approach to informally remind
them of the reserved status. 

Since the actual use is server controlled, it doesn't seem unreasonable
to expect a change could be implemented over the many months between when
this work is published as an RFC and when the first browser update
might decide to enforce the reservation... perhaps as an invalid cookie
warning popup?