Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)

"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Mon, 31 January 2011 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <annevk@opera.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 2E0623A68F6 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 7pmLBUQyElCN for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D683A68F5 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local (5355737B.cm-6-6b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.85.115.123]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p0VAceGx028451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:38:41 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Adam Barth" <ietf@adambarth.com>, "Daniel Stenberg" <daniel@haxx.se>
References: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101292300070.1561@tvnag.unkk.fr>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:38:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software
Message-ID: <op.vp546pcd64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101292300070.1561@tvnag.unkk.fr>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (MacIntel)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.236.208.81
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)
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: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:35:43 -0000

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:08:01 +0100, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>; wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> I consider "my" date parser compliant, but it parses the string in a  
>>> different way than described in the spec.
>>
>> When you say "in a different way", do you mean via a different  
>> algorithm or that your implementation outputs different dates for some  
>> input strings?
>
> I mean that it uses a different algorithm but ends up with the same  
> output for most strings and certainly for all strings using sensible  
> formats.
>
> For really crazy inputs the output may differ a bit, like for example my  
> parser is less forgiving on rubbish in the middle of the string as in  
> "Thu, 999999999999-Aug-2007 20:49:07 GMT" or "Sat, 15-Apr-17 boink:z  
> 21:01:22".

That would mean it is not compliant.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/