Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4043)

Hello Adam,

I agree the "default-path" is a term-of-art and yes, you are right it would
break references later in the document.
I'm sorry if my explanation wasn't accurate enough; it is not necessarily
easy to explain it in a concise matter.

Firstly, as I stated in the notes, although the construction of
"default-path" is stated right after it's written in Section 5.1.4 and that
the context might give a clue that "default-path" means "default cookie
path", "default-path" is never used again in Section 5.1.4. "uri-path",
"request-path" and "cookie-path" are the only terms being used in that
section.
Therefore, the reader might get confused as to what exactly the
"default-path" refers to whereas "default cookie-path" is a bit more
explicit; it's a specific case of the more general term "cookie-path".

Secondly, regarding the references being broken, there are only two other
references, one in Section 5.2.4 (where "default-path" and "cookie-path"
are being tied together) and one in Section 5.3. I mentioned them briefly
in the notes too.

Hope this helps,

Pierre.

2014-07-06 17:55 GMT+02:00 Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>:

> I don't think we should accept this errata.  This sentence is the
> definition of default-path, which is a term-of-art within this
> document.  After the errata, this sentence is no longer defines this
> term, breaking the references later in the document.
>
> Adam
>
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:31 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=4043
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>
> >
> > Section: 5.1.4
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
> > algorithm to compute the default-path of a cookie:
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > The user agent MUST use an algorithm equivalent to the following
> > algorithm to compute the default value for a cookie-path
> > (and thereby matching the server-side semantics as defined in 4.1.2.4):
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The term "default-path" is not formally defined before and is quite
> misleading for the reader
> >   A. going through the section 5.1.4 as it's only used there once and
> not again
> >      until section 5.2.4 (once again) and 5.3 (once again).
> >   B. not being a native English speaker
> >
> > Furthermore, the true meaning of the "default-path" only appears
> sometime after at section 5.2.4 where it's finally bound altogether.
> Therefore, my personal recommendation would be to also replace the other
> occurrences of the "default-path" terms by "default cookie-path"
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http-state mailing list
> > http-state@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state
>