Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-cookie-10 ?

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 8/27/10 4:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Adam Barth wrote:
>> According to <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00834.html>,
>> I seem to have asked you for a test case, which I don't have a record
>> of you ever providing:
> 
> I did not. Knowing nothing about your test suite I could only have pro-
> vided a Set-Cookie header with a date in 1969. You would spend more time
> asking me to make one, wait for and then read through the response, then
> verify the test case and incorporate it into your test suite, than just
> making the test case yourself, so I didn't think you were being serious.
> 
>> In any case, the test suite isn't done yet and it's not a prerequisite
>> for finishing this document.
> 
> The idea wasn't to add something to your test suite, but to change the
> draft so it defines date processing in line with major implementations
> (that being a goal of the specification) or note in the document why it
> defines something that is unintuitive and contrary to running code, so
> implementers may be persuaded to change their implementations.

If the date processing behavior of existing implementations is an open
issue, then perhaps the WG can settle on the correct wording via list
discussion, or add the issue to the tracker:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpstate/trac/report/1

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see date processing
behavior is the only open issue -- the other topics in this thread were
requests for new features, not clarifications of existing behavior for
documentation in draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/