Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 10, Issue 8
Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 01:50 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@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 44C9428C0E1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:50:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 iA8zANsRByU5 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f175.google.com (mail-pz0-f175.google.com [209.85.222.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3503A69BC for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so3242512pzk.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:51:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.8.5 with SMTP id 5mr288690wfh.89.1265248288568; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:51:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <494224.45089.qm@web52407.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.86.1265227208.29152.http-state@ietf.org> <494224.45089.qm@web52407.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:51:08 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a1002031751x52f63b3je806d8644508b0a9@mail.gmail.com>
To: eric bianchetti <eric_bianchetti@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: http-state@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 10, Issue 8
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:50:49 -0000
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:28 PM, eric bianchetti <eric_bianchetti@yahoo.com> wrote: > I believe, but I might be utterly wrong, the old specifications (sorry I do not recal the RFC #) was : > > 1) the Domain MUST have 2 dots. > 2) if Domain is not explicitly given (Domain = .domain.com) then the server that initiate the request will be the implicit domain; AND Path will not be taken in account. That's correct. > My opinion, for what it is worth, being we should keep the same behavior for backward compatibility. We're interested in backward compatibility with implementations, not with the specs. If we had backwards compatibility with the specs, we'd have to reject virtually every cookie in the world because vanishingly few of them have a Version=1 attribute. :) Adam
- Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 10, Issue… eric bianchetti
- Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 10, Issue… Adam Barth