Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 04 August 2009 09:19 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 14AD03A6FD4 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 leAexDmYP757 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f188.google.com (mail-yw0-f188.google.com [209.85.211.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9523A6FDA for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywh26 with SMTP id 26so5013871ywh.5 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.10.11 with SMTP id n11mr12669074ybi.127.1249377573100; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908040911070.15554@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908040015310.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im> <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908040911070.15554@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:19:13 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0908040219s14ebdd97g4d092f90865f3c50@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state charter
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:19:37 -0000

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Daniel Stenberg<daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Adam Barth wrote:
>> The "Informational" status does not appear appropriate for this document
>> because the Internet community seems to have reached consensus about the
>> behavior of the Cookie and Set-Cookie header as evidenced by billions of
>> such headers traveling over the Internet between hundreds of implementations
>> every day.
>
> As on author of one of those hundreds, I for sure would've appreciated the
> existance of such a document when I started my work.
>
> If clarifying the existing practise isn't what you want to see, what exactly
> do you want?

That is what I want to do.  :)

More specifically, I think we should document behavior that is broadly
interoperable.  For behaviors that differ between major
implementations, we should use our judgement and spec the most sane
thing.

> Both RFC2109 and 2965 failed because they tried to engineer a new cookie
> concept that no author was interested in. I don't see how craftning yet
> another new thing has any better chance this time, so the "only" remaining
> work is instead documenting how things actually work today.
>
> Or what am I missing?

I think we should obsolete those cookie specs and replace them with a
standards track cookie spec that is actually useful.

Adam