Re: [http-state] Ticket 5: Cookie ordering

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 BEEA53A683B for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, 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 RkNVCtqmg+Wp for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-px0-f186.google.com (mail-px0-f186.google.com [209.85.216.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDCB3A68AA for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:38:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pxi16 with SMTP id 16so3469559pxi.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:37:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.154.33 with SMTP id g33mr5150762wfo.193.1263965876092; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:37:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001192118410.10824@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <7789133a1001191410l48530adar28098a03e6de0fb1@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001192044220.10824@egate.xpasc.com> <7789133a1001192113u4c185d9dv9a81afbbae826198@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001192118410.10824@egate.xpasc.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:37:36 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a1001192137sc9b77f4l59753436f3db2335@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 5: Cookie ordering
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, 20 Jan 2010 05:38:03 -0000

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:21 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ticket 3 is still open for discussion, but I'd like to get started
>>>> talking the next ticket:
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpstate/trac/ticket/5
>>>>
>>>> == Overview ==
>>>>
>>>> Currently the draft defines the order in which cookies should appear
>>>> in the Cookie header.  In particular, cookies are ordered first by the
>>>> length of the Path attribute (longest first) and then by creation date
>>>> (earliest first).  The majority of the most widely used user agents
>>>> use this ordering. (I can look up exactly which browsers follow the
>>>> ordering if that's important.)
>>>>
>>>> Sending cookies with longer (i.e., more specific) paths first is
>>>> important for compatibly because some servers host multiple (mutually
>>>> trusting) web applications at different (possibly overlapping) paths.
>>>
>>> I think 'longer' is not a precise term ... likewise, 'more specific'
>>> isn't
>>> precise enough to avoid confusion. I think what would be expected is that
>>> the path sith the most 'levels' (as noted by '/' characters) is longer in
>>> a
>>> deeper into the hierarachy sense. Same depth, the age rule could apply.
>>>
>>> If 'more specific' is already defined similar to what I've outlined,
>>> you can igore this comment.
>>
>> In this case, all the cookie paths are prefixes of the Request-URI
>> path, so these all amount to the same thing.  FWIW, longer is a
>> precise term: literally the one whose path attribute contains more
>> characters.
>
> More characters doesn't seem like the right definition, even if it works
> most of the time. If the argument is, as you've made, that the requirement
> is for a server to handle cookies in the most precise order ... it will
> be related to logical depth of the hierarchy and not character length.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "right" definition.  Can you provide
a test case where the two definitions differ?

Adam