Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4044)

Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com> Sun, 06 July 2014 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <plepropre@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F9E1A0A82 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwsw0X7QJH8q for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x235.google.com (mail-oa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532CF1A0A81 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l6so3509097oag.26 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9rUtEwQehs/ZYUTGH/0+qBEPs1f5x3lTVUAbXDz8gqc=; b=ruYUmFtMmV/53Dtk/vvMhOzcyb9NLoLqKwLLjdDgD4geUN30jxqr/vxtPl/AfXfuBX S+QkyoqlmJRQadk28LYQLy9p6b5xPQ1OjrNwtyTn1g9fYuGDh7fkm+xMHyITaCAAa960 T8psil+8St7WEnX5xPP9LdKUyPDUGuRNdwqgqLLLDSs3k6OSEVDGnZbnOFx65mI8tMyC cHS7NCAaSkpgKidGagj/TlRRgef8kkebKe2R/OpCok6XT1l9+iyK+8VHT+fhstrMw9OV Lu1TBLCwmoGAF+BPVCpk1976BtCJ2yoV9qKS++yARYuzclkwQ0SiSV4kZcQx5epZfoIY Er2g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.62.148 with SMTP id y20mr3581689oer.80.1404672927735; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.197.9 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKaJ_Q0DytCCgoZW9DwzWTSSfg=7nJLv0TvchWKvb5cDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140706143958.45E66180015@rfc-editor.org> <CAJE5ia8eUw-fouPHF7L1kQsZriDAGe-32fzy6aCFFaeGQDN45g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL38MXLiN56r8=-KmJsUUW-OLwDM3vJ0ouvFmTLsFGJLqXM1Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKaJ_Q0DytCCgoZW9DwzWTSSfg=7nJLv0TvchWKvb5cDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 20:55:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL38MXJW3PCj2zj=VjF3HOj6EqHhYgw3XR1mW1nHfo2QfJpTxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b67017fe225a604fd8ae6dd
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/XMVqMt4l8vhs8v2Pz09OtyglzPY
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:52:05 -0700
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4044)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 19:00:37 -0000

Hello Barry,

I guess you're right on this one; this is clearly a comment/suggestion of
improvement. The RFC isn't in error there. My mistake, sorry.
Taking this comment into consideration, I'm a bit hesitating regarding my
other request (ID 4043) because I still think there might still be some
room for it to be valid.

Well, anyway, I'm not the one who decides :).

Regards,

Pierre.


2014-07-06 20:37 GMT+02:00 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>;:

> The point of errata, though, is to record errors in the documents... not
> to suggest improvements.  I don't see that either of these is reporting an
> error.  Do you?
>
> There is an issue here: we need a way to record comments and suggestions,
> and we don't have that.
>
> But given what errata are meant for, my inclination is to mark both of
> these as "rejected", much as I appreciate the value of your comments.
>
> Barry, Applications AD
>
>
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014, Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>> As I stated in the notes, whether I got it right or wrong doesn't really
>> matter in my opinion.
>> In either case, the second action item might seem a bit surprising.
>>
>> If it is stated that way, it's probably because there is a reason behind
>> it. Basically, I'm just suggesting to enhance a bit the explanation behind
>> it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre.
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-06 17:56 GMT+02:00 Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>;:
>>
>>> I don't think we should accept this errata.  This errata adds
>>> non-normative text that isn't strictly correct.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:39 AM, RFC Errata System
>>> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:
>>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6265,
>>> > "HTTP State Management Mechanism".
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------
>>> > You may review the report below and at:
>>> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&eid=4044
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------
>>> > Type: Technical
>>> > Reported by: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>;
>>> >
>>> > Section: 5.3
>>> >
>>> > Original Text
>>> > -------------
>>> > Otherwise:
>>> >
>>> >    Set the cookie's persistent-flag to false.
>>> >
>>> >    Set the cookie's expiry-time to the latest representable
>>> >    date.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Corrected Text
>>> > --------------
>>> > Otherwise:
>>> >
>>> >    Set the cookie's persistent-flag to false.
>>> >
>>> >    Set the cookie's expiry-time to the latest representable
>>> >    date. This is a best-effort approach to ensure that the cookie
>>> >    will effectively expire when "the current session is over"
>>> >    (as defined by the user agent) and not anytime before.
>>> >
>>> > Notes
>>> > -----
>>> > The second action item isn't necessarily obvious for an
>>> implementer/reader. If I got the intention right, then I believe it might
>>> improve the "user-friendly" rating of this document. Otherwise, it might
>>> still be beneficial to explicit a bit the reasoning behind that action.
>>> >
>>> > Instructions:
>>> > -------------
>>> > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>>> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------
>>> > RFC6265 (draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-23)
>>> > --------------------------------------
>>> > Title               : HTTP State Management Mechanism
>>> > Publication Date    : April 2011
>>> > Author(s)           : A. Barth
>>> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> > Source              : HTTP State Management Mechanism
>>> > Area                : Applications
>>> > Stream              : IETF
>>> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>
>>
>>