Re: [http-state] I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt

Blake Frantz <bfrantz@cisecurity.org> Tue, 23 February 2010 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bfrantz@cisecurity.org>
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 EF00E28C129 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:13:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.389, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 FHth2qSsgZgN for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp187.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp187.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAF83A8306 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 21F7C16F21F7; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp192.mex07a.mlsrvr.com (smtp192.mex07a.mlsrvr.com [67.192.133.192]) by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 16DAC16F21F0; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:15:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com ([192.168.1.67]) by 207038-HUB10.mex07a.mlsrvr.com ([192.168.1.203]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:15:55 -0600
From: Blake Frantz <bfrantz@cisecurity.org>
To: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:15:52 -0600
Thread-Topic: [http-state] I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt
Thread-Index: Acq0qxuksrLu7HpHTTqYlml9fqxFwwAAFnwQ
Message-ID: <4C374A2653EB5E43AF886CE70DFC567213CEF5CB60@34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <20100223161504.7E9D128C1C6@core3.amsl.com> <op.u8lba0ze64w2qv@annevk-t60>
In-Reply-To: <op.u8lba0ze64w2qv@annevk-t60>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [http-state] I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt
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, 23 Feb 2010 17:13:54 -0000

Similarly, the top of section '7.1 General Recommendations' states:

"The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for new applications".

This statement may require the same clarification as the one noted by Anne.

Blake


-----Original Message-----
From: http-state-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:http-state-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:10 AM
To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: http-state@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [http-state] I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:15:04 +0100, <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> The cookie protocol has many
> historical infelicities and should be avoided for new applications of
> HTTP.

What exactly does this mean? There's no suitable replacement for cookies  
available currently so giving this advice seems a bit premature, but maybe  
I misunderstand what it says.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
_______________________________________________
http-state mailing list
http-state@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state