IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] A question about the parser test data

Chris Hanson <cph@google.com> Fri, 08 April 2011 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cph@google.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 3BBFF3A6A0E for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 KQ6qvDa5hqtc for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4663A697A for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.84]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p38M32In019598 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:03:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1302300183; bh=5S3yA3j0XtP/gRz4BJ34yRhc9ZM=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Ak/5A5cH9wQi1fV0OSeyEYph7CP+ZXS3eG1CSc+g6uE8WmVAnp1ZByL1mgiuP1Ihf 7k/l6vhdSqugk6wSa3LFA==
Received: from ywl41 (ywl41.prod.google.com [10.192.12.41]) by kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p38M30Hw021344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:03:01 -0700
Received: by ywl41 with SMTP id 41so2037997ywl.18 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=WvNDkKecsWLVQwTDSsdAMFfgBaiJ5xasMl9wV8Ra52w=; b=ALkkmR+ve2Yp7rCjBRhGKVkGabGYBBRcNF4u/KPKcrowIdOuNpRDkRq5w1Y1Tt1sDy N8nDctzJU5Tnp0Aaj3oQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=tXjS1m2v1ewVhDRL4q4Bj0SSCKaI0PcYQKGRbJqy72ouJx+HQH5h9bWq9dLqELNagh cetDrZ5HbJGkBK39DSuA==
Received: by 10.91.55.2 with SMTP id h2mr2532680agk.5.1302300179150; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.79.13 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinCjwwbo0Y=QgVS=5XV1apESYbGvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimipXDMrkfTA=aJ0UwKibEUR6vakA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinCjwwbo0Y=QgVS=5XV1apESYbGvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Hanson <cph@google.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:02:39 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinStWoBKmQE-DiWDn30QCOrsN6goQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="001485f8ca3e91b99604a06f634f"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] A question about the parser test data
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:01:20 -0000

I've attached my notes about the parser tests.  I tried to give enough
detail so you can evaluate whether the data is wrong or my
understanding is wrong; let me know if you need more.

Chris

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
> The test data isn't up to date with the final changes in the spec.  If
> you'd be willing to send me the list of tests that don't match your
> reading of the spec, I'll be happy to fix them.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Chris Hanson <cph@google.com> wrote:
>> I've recently built a cookie implementation that's intended to be
>> (eventually) compliant with draft-23.  As part of my testing, I
>> gobbled up the test data from https://github.com/abarth/http-state/
>> and have been running my set-cookie parser on it.
>>
>> I've been seeing some anomalies between what it specifies and what I
>> expect based on my reading of the spec.
>>
>> Are these tests intended to be true for compliant implementations?  Or
>> are they just true for current browsers, and not necessarily for
>> compliant implementations?  I suspect the latter but would like
>> confirmation; otherwise I may need some help understanding why my
>> reading of the spec is incorrect.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> http-state mailing list
>> http-state@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email