[http-state] A question about the parser test data

Chris Hanson <cph@google.com> Mon, 04 April 2011 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cph@google.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 47EA63A691F for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 79M6c606iXCk for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E953A68BC for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.7]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p34592Bl008617 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:09:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1301893742; bh=4STu5bvXPgkJ2Wcl9W/0U8DL3U8=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Content-Type; b=QgLr6v+40V6XIdzfX36pE4jok3QdAYaPhvIv4RXffDJr7YUY0yrDI1ZgRtXEoQQny zTsJhxit4obL03SOMf4NQ==
Received: from gwaa12 (gwaa12.prod.google.com [10.200.27.12]) by hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p34590v8029281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:09:01 -0700
Received: by gwaa12 with SMTP id a12so2305912gwa.28 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=q1M0a91Q+O/TLoltP2Yafl2KK2MhJ9bnb616JoMzrb8=; b=j3/fsmTqZ/fh+3sMoR19IW/jRRfEnKMCoQW5kfNQdm5ysoT0Wm4Lt3GccUkacr0ctH 3ay1Q8vCfqVEV0G7KlFQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=MXY3Hl2tHfMmBqOqfdfGH0cbZRVKS+sx2sBZOTEqE8AlQvvCwIzE6lCRIXNNzcBFDI 9n9QIC3ComPzcMP3FGCA==
Received: by 10.90.22.29 with SMTP id 29mr6772064agv.32.1301893740129; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.91.212.7 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Hanson <cph@google.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:08:40 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimipXDMrkfTA=aJ0UwKibEUR6vakA@mail.gmail.com>
To: http-state@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:36:40 -0700
Subject: [http-state] A question about the parser test data
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, 04 Apr 2011 05:09:43 -0000

I've recently built a cookie implementation that's intended to be
(eventually) compliant with draft-23.  As part of my testing, I
gobbled up the test data from https://github.com/abarth/http-state/
and have been running my set-cookie parser on it.

I've been seeing some anomalies between what it specifies and what I
expect based on my reading of the spec.

Are these tests intended to be true for compliant implementations?  Or
are they just true for current browsers, and not necessarily for
compliant implementations?  I suspect the latter but would like
confirmation; otherwise I may need some help understanding why my
reading of the spec is incorrect.

Thanks in advance,
Chris