Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4043)

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sun, 06 July 2014 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D111A03FC for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdLD-cUIwvAw for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA8E31A03F0 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u10so2170467lbd.5 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QaKGlgcAhQd5RvZmiHXMB0zY8xatfqNsY6/vsim7510=; b=KuOLIfxCbnWq4VchFpdOrj2MUAlc8IRq6nPRxemMWZyBKNAQiYseLOwiEGk7ohtGNr rBK14r3e6GNIsYrk35lgJvA8AtJdxGO6I6k+Wx1+jADWZEq7Gwxfj7SywrNNUbnvPHlx Q4L1e2PthH0I3uSeh/D4Bm2o09cfBrMaWx7s3M4OWkGalMvfZtzbsUyUEAWgQ7RTASXY xRDV1U3hOrzOYKFU/PoV8m/E2s0fIvikGe4p72tWaHYcU9KcH1Xh1P832poazm2De8G4 QBowYt+WFWJNl3rii5zqIrI4NNacpfH4yCtOcxrYvYneYCizDHqV61RSKRsJLPVGR6IM BCwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCmhLKlYBRVdPWNKn6JdftiZdgkPxu9hB2pbziODPswsI6+yuid6lL/joXh+GXPTpTEf/x
X-Received: by 10.112.164.146 with SMTP id yq18mr18377143lbb.5.1404662138913; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nd3sm25551774lbc.7.2014.07.06.08.55.37 for <http-state@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p9so2214929lbv.12 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.155.103 with SMTP id vv7mr2092367lbb.62.1404662137533; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.148.101 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140706143152.F350F180015@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140706143152.F350F180015@rfc-editor.org>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:55:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_WO06Z23Xu39C1Oj9pSTojAsSg78QzFh38d6TTxPBZbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/TW-P-x4AHvOMjd-3xSNhi50uRiQ
Cc: plepropre@gmail.com, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4043)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:55:43 -0000

I don't think we should accept this errata.  This sentence is the
definition of default-path, which is a term-of-art within this
document.  After the errata, this sentence is no longer defines this
term, breaking the references later in the document.

Adam

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:31 AM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6265,
> "HTTP State Management Mechanism".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&eid=4043
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>;
>
> Section: 5.1.4
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
> algorithm to compute the default-path of a cookie:
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
> algorithm to compute the default value for a cookie-path
> (and thereby matching the server-side semantics as defined in 4.1.2.4):
>
> Notes
> -----
> The term "default-path" is not formally defined before and is quite misleading for the reader
>   A. going through the section 5.1.4 as it's only used there once and not again
>      until section 5.2.4 (once again) and 5.3 (once again).
>   B. not being a native English speaker
>
> Furthermore, the true meaning of the "default-path" only appears sometime after at section 5.2.4 where it's finally bound altogether. Therefore, my personal recommendation would be to also replace the other occurrences of the "default-path" terms by "default cookie-path"
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6265 (draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-23)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : HTTP State Management Mechanism
> Publication Date    : April 2011
> Author(s)           : A. Barth
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : HTTP State Management Mechanism
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> http-state mailing list
> http-state@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state