Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)

"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Mon, 31 January 2011 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <annevk@opera.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 97F843A6C13 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 DXo+Fc3YeKTw for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE653A696D for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local (5355737B.cm-6-6b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.85.115.123]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p0VDIfDs002899 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:18:42 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Daniel Stenberg" <daniel@haxx.se>
References: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101292300070.1561@tvnag.unkk.fr> <op.vp546pcd64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311141230.26269@tvnag.unkk.fr> <op.vp559k1664w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311254360.26269@tvnag.unkk.fr>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:18:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software
Message-ID: <op.vp6cledg64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101311254360.26269@tvnag.unkk.fr>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (MacIntel)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.236.208.81
Cc: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)
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: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:15:37 -0000

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:59:57 +0100, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>; wrote:
> That's not my interpretation at all. I can't find any mention of the  
> algorithm having to skip "rubbish" in the date field and continue  
> parsing on after it.
>
> Or what did you mean with not compliant? For the above two examples,  
> what would you claim the spec says the algorithm should do?

As far as I can tell in case of rubbish parsing fails and the algorithm  
therefore fails. It is a little unclear though. If it is supposed to be  
undefined it would be better if that were explicitly stated I think.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/