IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Mon, 31 January 2011 14:00 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 B77F03A6BFF for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:00:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, 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 FYZQsAcO1mre for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21AE3A6973 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1) with ESMTP id p0VE3DE9009165; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:03:13 +0100
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:03:13 +0100
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D46C045.4070101@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311500240.28922@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101292300070.1561@tvnag.unkk.fr> <op.vp546pcd64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311141230.26269@tvnag.unkk.fr> <op.vp559k1664w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311254360.26269@tvnag.unkk.fr> <4D46C045.4070101@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: 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 14:00:01 -0000

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Dan Winship wrote:

> "The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following algorithm 
> to parse a cookie-date." If you reject some dates that the 5.1.1 algorithm 
> would accept, then your algorithm is not equivalent.

Right, and I realize I have myself to blame for expressing myself sloppy in my 
first statement, but I was actually comparing my parser's strictness to a few 
browsers' parsers that I know are more liberal in what they parse than what 
the current spec say.

You can all stop pointing fingers now. I'll deal with my parser's compliance, 
and you can deal with yours.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email