Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sat, 05 February 2011 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 3EEDC3A6A50 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:14:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.683
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 AxFBStS3jYus for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7804B3A6A42 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so2677705iym.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.227.194 with SMTP id jb2mr5046002icb.432.1296901092798; Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z4sm1504099ibg.19.2011.02.05.02.18.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so3275619iwc.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.206.207 with SMTP id fv15mr1660149ibb.39.1296901090539; Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:18:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.35.13 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:17:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110205031227.f00013ceab8fb1928885c5c172fbfd4a.078b7e26ba.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110205031227.f00013ceab8fb1928885c5c172fbfd4a.078b7e26ba.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:17:40 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimN=3q6GeTvar1SW_syU3kK9+j1kNt0DiOzmJr7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: http-state@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?
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: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:14:46 -0000

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>; wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of
> draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?
> From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>;
> Date: Sat, February 05, 2011 1:49 am
> To: Remy Lebeau <remy@lebeausoftware.org>;
> Cc: http-state@ietf.org
>
>> I haven't gone through your example in detail, but you're correct
>> that the " character at the beginning of the Path attribute causes
>> the user agent to never return the cookie.
>
> Quotes around the Path attribute MAY allow the cookie to be returned,
> depending on which default-path is retreived.  Quotes around the Domain
> attribute, on the other hand, WILL NOT allow the cookie to be returned.
>
>> You're welcome to test implementations.
>
> Thanks for the link, that is exactly the kind of test data I have been
> looking for lately.  I'll run the examples through my implementation
> when I get a chance.

The test suite might not be fully up-to-date with the spec.  My plan
was to go through and update the expected results once the spec is
finalized.  There's also a test harness in that github that you might
find useful.

Adam