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

[Pierre Lepropre <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>:

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>>
>>
>>