[http-state] the "state" in http-state

Thomas Fossati <tho@koanlogic.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tho@koanlogic.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C12311E8093 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.505
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_IP_069060096=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d2Z+2nCwEL4W for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gonzo.koanlogic.com (unknown [69.60.118.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A9211E8072 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host228-48-dynamic.47-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.47.48.228]:51981 helo=[192.168.1.3]) by sp2844.serverpronto.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.50) id 1QUdAs-0001fx-FQ for http-state@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:13:25 -0400
From: Thomas Fossati <tho@koanlogic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:13:25 +0200
Message-Id: <18AD8547-9778-47DB-8D16-AEB9477F6640@koanlogic.com>
To: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 79.47.48.228
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tho@koanlogic.com
X-Spam-DCC: :
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on sp2844.serverpronto.com)
Subject: [http-state] the "state" in http-state
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 09 Jun 2011 11:13:27 -0000

Folks,

http-state wg is dead, still there's a lot of discussion burning under his ashes.  Indeed, lots of people seem to have strong interest (and opionions) about state/session handling in the context of HTTP based applications.

I think, and probably most of you agree, that IETF should provide mechanisms for full and secure (with regards to a serious threat model) state management facilities for HTTP apps.

That said, should we push real -- as opposed to soft and insecure as in cookie-based solutions -- state management into HTTP ?  I.e. should we consider enhancing HTTP with facilities to turn it into a (optionally) stateful beast ?  

Or should we pass the mic to other layers ?


I think this is the fundamental question that we must answer clearly before evaluating/discussing the different -- loosely related -- tech proposals that are now surfacing.

t.