IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Conformance classes

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Wed, 16 December 2009 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 0BC963A68E3 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:16:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 FOkzDIoSXBWX for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [83.168.254.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666733A6A1E for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:16:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [83.168.254.42]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9) with ESMTP id nBGIG40P002488; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:16:04 +0100
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:16:04 +0100
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a0912161008q1dd6725bg91e7208b99ac1c05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912161912350.765@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <7789133a0912141541n70180adchba637f96ae4daf8d@mail.gmail.com> <D6082C37-3553-48A1-BFB9-2788DE2F91B8@gbiv.com> <7789133a0912150121u5567d076ue2f95496ea05ce03@mail.gmail.com> <4EC7C553-2D72-456C-BF41-DCD010E99DED@gbiv.com> <7789133a0912151213r1f469154x4ca2ffe7e9920d58@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912152219340.20887@tvnag.unkk.fr> <7789133a0912151358i1d7e48b2s2b125e51884d87c3@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912152303410.20887@tvnag.unkk.fr> <188647A0-5178-4069-A6A7-D16997112F73@apple.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912161355170.21529@tvnag.unkk.fr> <7789133a0912161008q1dd6725bg91e7208b99ac1c05@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Conformance classes
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, 16 Dec 2009 18:16:29 -0000

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Adam Barth wrote:

> My understanding of your position is that we should make the entire cookie 
> protocol (meaning everything the user agent is required to understand) 
> conforming for servers.  We can then recommend (at the SHOULD level?) that 
> servers stick to a subset of the protocol that's easier to understand / has 
> cleaner semantics.
>
> Is that correct?  If so, that seems reasonable to me.

Yes, I believe that's a pretty good way to describe my position!

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email