Re: [http-state] draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-05 posted

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:23:03 +0100, Adam Barth <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> * Section 2. "General nonsense"? Maybe a more "appropriate" title should
>>> be used?
>>
>> I'm open to suggestions.  The term "general nonsense" comes from the
>> mathematics literature, where it refers to somewhat boilerplate
>> information that needs to be included for correctness.
>
> In some documents I've seen these are included in the introduction section,
> such as in RFC 2616
>
> I have tended to reference syntax conventions at the beginning of the syntax
> section

Yeah, my concern is I'd like folks to read the introduction by I don't
care if people read that section because it doesn't say anything folks
don't already know...

>>> * 5.3 step 10: Maybe specify that client must ignore cookies with
>>> expiration date at the current time? (similar with use of "expiration
>>> date
>>> in the past" elsewhere)
>>
>> I'm not too worried about that.  It's virtually impossible to hit the
>> current time on the dot.
>
> It is possible for "max-age=0"

That's a good point.  I'll read through all the time processing and
make sure these cases work correctly.

Adam