Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> Fri, 09 January 2009 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <http-state-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: http-state-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-http-state-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDCC3A6848; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:32:37 -0800 (PST)
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 60F7C3A67EA for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 UNFr7dXBQi6w for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.mindio.com (app1.bc.anu.net [193.189.141.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7CC3A6848 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c-98-206-56-182.hsd1.in.comcast.net [98.206.56.182]) by mail.mindio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE4A19C234 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:32:20 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4967B455.7060904@corry.biz>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:32:21 -0600
From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.51.1231531204.17652.http-state@ietf.org> <007701c97297$0875b610$19612230$@tapman@questconsultantsllc.com>
In-Reply-To: <007701c97297$0875b610$19612230$@tapman@questconsultantsllc.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state@ietf.org>
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: http-state-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: http-state-bounces@ietf.org
Micah Tapman wrote on 1/9/2009 2:15 PM: > Speaking to the "browser" idea, and expanding on the libcurl comment from > Daniel, I think we should consider changing the terminology to something > like "client object" instead of "browser". RFC 2109 uses the term "user agents" which I believe is the generally accepted term -- I used the term "browsers" because that was the initial focus of the HTTPOnly efforts. But yes, for the Internet Draft and the RFC, we'll use the term "user agent," which is what we used for our original HTTPOnly scoping document: https://docs.google.com/View?docid=dxxqgkd_0cvcqhsdw - Bil _______________________________________________ http-state mailing list http-state@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state