IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies

Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> Fri, 29 January 2010 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bil@corry.biz>
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 3ED703A67A3 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 Bx-5W4BGDRIM for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.mindio.com (app1.bc.anu.net [193.189.141.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB243A6452 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c-69-181-67-65.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.67.65]) by mail.mindio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D284FCFCC; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:34:30 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4B629D8F.9010503@corry.biz>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:34:23 -0800
From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <7789133a1001220050m56cc438x35099b7972639331@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001220957240.9467@tvnag.unkk.fr> <33259CFA-E50A-46D7-A315-5D68ACB69CDB@apple.com> <2C56E4FA-8BE2-479A-AA53-E64DC3A907E2@gbiv.com> <4B628D14.9080003@corry.biz> <4B629A92.9090101@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4B629A92.9090101@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:34:12 -0000

Julian Reschke wrote on 1/29/2010 12:21 AM: 
> Bil Corry wrote:
>> ...
>> The spec we produce may not pass IESG review anyway given we're
>> specifying behavior that violates RFC 2109 (and presumably httpbis). 
>> The purpose of this WG is to create a spec that reflects how cookies
>> are actually implemented in real life across common UAs and servers,
>> including the insecure and inconsistent behavior.  Your position that
>> 'vendors will adjust their behavior' has not borne out as RFC 2965
>> illustrates (and the very reason for this WG).
>> ...
> 
> Where specifically do you expect a violation of HTTPbis, except for the
> well-known issue about the header syntax not following the HTTP rules
> for repeated headers?

That's what I was thinking of.  It's a MUST-level rule.


- Bil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email