Re: [http-state] Whether to recommend the cookie protocol (was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt)

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Wed, 24 February 2010 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@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 DCC4828C1B1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:27:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, 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 Wk4aSUjxewm4 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com (mail-yw0-f173.google.com [209.85.211.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFB128C19B for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywh3 with SMTP id 3so2826008ywh.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.151.3.11 with SMTP id f11mr1548620ybi.108.1266982170659; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f191.google.com (mail-iw0-f191.google.com [209.85.223.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm545433yxh.33.2010.02.23.19.29.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn29 with SMTP id 29so2945819iwn.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.143.148 with SMTP id v20mr581661ibu.14.1266982168362; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4C374A2653EB5E43AF886CE70DFC567213CEF5CE46@34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <5c4444771002231855s36391fdfgd30a1ebc57722915@mail.gmail.com> <4C374A2653EB5E43AF886CE70DFC567213CEF5CE46@34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:29:08 -0800
Message-ID: <5c4444771002231929m3749c1c2g7903b444155dafa7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Blake Frantz <bfrantz@cisecurity.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Whether to recommend the cookie protocol (was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt)
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:27:32 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Blake Frantz <bfrantz@cisecurity.org> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Barth [mailto:ietf@adambarth.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:55 PM
>> To: Anne van Kesteren; Blake Frantz
>> Cc: http-state
>> Subject: Whether to recommend the cookie protocol (was Re: [http-state]
>> I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt)
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Blake Frantz <bfrantz@cisecurity.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Similarly, the top of section '7.1 General Recommendations' states:
>> >
>> > "The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for new applications".
>> >
>> > This statement may require the same clarification as the one noted by
>> Anne.
>>
>> What clarification do you have in mind?  Keep in mind that we're
>> writing this document for the long term.  Just because we don't have
>> an alternative in mind doesn't mean we won't have better options in
>> the future.
>>
>> Would you really recommend that new applications of HTTP use cookies?
>>
>
> The point of confusion for me in:
>
> "The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for new applications"
>
> was the ambiguity of the word "application". Until you mentioned SIP, I interpreted "application" as a "web application" that I would interact with via my browser. Perhaps the following will help prevent other readers from doing the same as I did:
>
> "The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for maintaining state in new protocols that operate over HTTP."

Done (with "use" in place of "maintaining state").

Adam