IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] consensus call: cookie server conformance

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sat, 29 January 2011 19:34 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 6E1453A6856 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:34:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, 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 JuEmWIDEDA-R for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEBF3A6826 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yie19 with SMTP id 19so1702865yie.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.102.40 with SMTP id z40mr5907245ybb.430.1296329877582; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r41sm12457121yba.16.2011.01.29.11.37.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so3975111iyi.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.14.136 with SMTP id g8mr4455517iba.114.1296329873583; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.35.13 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101291735580.10943@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <4D41FA83.5040302@KingsMountain.com> <4D433C9A.7010203@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101291735580.10943@tvnag.unkk.fr>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:37:23 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1kyVmqAObQAMobf8d97jQjqtP7Ldsh_=s0OTL@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] consensus call: cookie server conformance
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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:34:49 -0000

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Dan Winship wrote:
>>>>   This section describes the syntax and semantics of a well-behaved
>>>>   profile of the Cookie and Set-Cookie headers.
>>
>> -1, because Section 4 says "cookie-value=token", which is annoying
>> (since it prohibits both base64 and URI encoding, both of which are
>> commonly used)
>
> I hadn't really considered these details about 'token' there and I agree
> that it seems a bit too strict.
>
> Why did we limit it like that?

That rule comes from RFC 2109 (with the bogus parts of the RFC 2109
cookie-value syntax removed).  It's certainly stricter than we need.
Something like allowing base64 sounds reasonable to me.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email