Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Fri, 04 February 2011 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@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 18FCD3A69A1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:23:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.732, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CpNkhifRS15T for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3415D3A67B7 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so864341yxt.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.225.1 with SMTP id x1mr3095393ybg.358.1296789989661; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p32sm785291ybk.8.2011.02.03.19.26.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so1914877iwc.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.10.199 with SMTP id q7mr3267410ibq.39.1296789987269; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:26:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.35.13 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:25:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110203202303.f00013ceab8fb1928885c5c172fbfd4a.0cc2d70540.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110203202303.f00013ceab8fb1928885c5c172fbfd4a.0cc2d70540.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:25:57 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1h-CWyt5KNnD2NXXs413aU_kbYZyEjqaKAPQ_@mail.gmail.com>
To: Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: http-state@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?
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: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 03:23:07 -0000

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>; wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of
> draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?
> From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>;
> Date: Thu, February 03, 2011 7:12 pm
> To: Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>;
> Cc: http-state@ietf.org
>
>> I should be more clear.  Quotation marks are not special characters in
>> cookie values.  They have no effect on how cookies are processed.  Any
>> use of quotation marks by servers is pure superstition, just like
>> using a leading "." before the value of the Domain attribute.
>
> So the use of quotations around a cookie-value is opaque and the quotes
> will be stored by the user agent and passed back to the server as-is.
> Ok.  Hopefully, I won't run up against any servers that still send
> quoted cookie-av values.

Are you implementing a user agent or a server?  If you're implementing
a user agent, please ignore Section 4 in its entirety and read only
Section 5.  In particular, the text that appears to be confusing you
is contained in Section 4.

Adam