Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-22
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 01 March 2011 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 0D3353A6AF1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:31:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TQZn6GvcOBJk for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F7F3A6A16 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-185.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-185.cisco.com [64.101.72.185]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05E25400F6; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4D6D6601.207@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:32:49 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <4D6A9C8D.7090401@KingsMountain.com> <4D6BF059.2010909@stpeter.im> <4D6C1900.1050005@stpeter.im> <AANLkTikpoAzVhzoeqNzbKwZEpUAarTOpsBX84Ziof3FB@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpoAzVhzoeqNzbKwZEpUAarTOpsBX84Ziof3FB@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms060706000704030101080206"
Cc: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-22
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: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:31:51 -0000
On 3/1/11 2:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: >> On 2/28/11 11:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 2/27/11 11:48 AM, =JeffH wrote: >>>> Julian noted.. >>>>> >>>>> On 25.02.2011 18:21, =JeffH wrote: >>>>>> >>> cookie-value = *cookie-octet / ( DQUOTE *cookie-octet DQUOTE ) >>>>>> >>> cookie-octet = %x21 / %x23-2B / %x2D-3A / %x3C-5B / %x5D-7E >>>>>> >>> ; ASCII characters excluding CTLs, whitespace, >>>>>> >>> ; DQUOTE, comma, semicolon, and backslash >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Works for me. Thanks Roy. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > In the datatracker, I've updated the RFC Editor note accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> great, thx all for sorting this out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I'm glad you've added the comment to the ABNF above, tho one might >>>>>> add.. >>>>>> >>>>>> s/ASCII/7-bit ASCII/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ..or something similar to explicitly indicate exclusion of %x80-FF. >>>>> >>>>> "US-ASCII", please. >>>> >>>> doh, yes of course. >>>> >>>> at this point I'm thinking we should add an RFC-Editor Note to the >>>> effect of adding an explicit normative reference to.. >>>> >>>> US-ASCII. Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American Standard Code for >>>> Information Interchange. Standard ANSI X3.4-1986, ANSI, 1986. >>>> >>>> We already use the term "US-ASCII" also in section 2.2 (of -cookie-22) >>>> but without citation. >>> >>> I agree with Julian: not an RFC Editor note (I really don't like those >>> because they aren't very transparent), but a revised I-D. >> >> The reason I don't particularly like RFC Editor notes is that they are >> not very transparent (how many people watch the datatracker history?). >> So here is some transparency for you... >> >> The RFC Editor note currently on file in the datatracker is: >> >> ### >> >> RFC Editor Note >> >> 1. Please add the following sentence to the end of the Abstract: >> >> "This document obsoletes RFC 2395." > > Presumably RFC 2965. It seems RFC 2395 is an informational RFC about > IP Payload Compression Using LZS. Yes, good catch. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… Julian Reschke
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… Adam Barth
- Re: [http-state] parser rules of draft-ietf-https… Peter Saint-Andre