Re: [http-state] Updated draft

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Mon, 17 August 2009 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 1BFF63A6822 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.505, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 tRktIsqsS9YT for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kluster1.contactor.se (kluster1.contactor.se [91.191.140.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E653A6CFD for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux2.contactor.se (linux2.contactor.se [91.191.140.14]) by kluster1.contactor.se (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n7HLJR5L016282; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:19:27 +0200
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:19:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@linux2.contactor.se
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a0908171325i4c908530k43d317a4c777b10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908172227340.16209@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
References: <7789133a0908151008p35ff30e6w2761368fe70d41a6@mail.gmail.com> <4A889417.9020709@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908170929100.22132@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908170853r5a81b84cu1308049256f51d2c@mail.gmail.com> <7789133a0908170908r4e3e8d30v7187bbf67f76b95c@mail.gmail.com> <4A8996DE.4030905@gmx.de> <7789133a0908171152q5cdd97beia9e4034148e63e0e@mail.gmail.com> <4A89B35C.6010601@gmx.de> <op.uytnzlkm64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local> <4A89B4CD.9010708@gmx.de> <7789133a0908171325i4c908530k43d317a4c777b10@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Updated draft
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:19:41 -0000

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Adam Barth wrote:

> Which, itself, would be a decision (and likely a poor decision).

If there's nothing in the spec that says which order to use, why waste more 
bytes than necessary on the job?

That's probably the reason why several implementations don't sort today: the 
cookies just happens to be kept around in memory in a particular order, and 
that order is then used in the Cookie: header. Or it is sorted based on some 
other metric.

I've browsed the Cookie: code for curl, wget, libsoup, pavuk, lftp and aria2. 
If I didn't miss anything, none of these cookie implementations sort the 
cookies as the browsers.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se