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

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Blake Frantz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Barth [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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