Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 08 July 2013 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 611EA21F9DAB for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jVOhhRwjQmA for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C0B21F9E12 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u12so2560279qcx.40 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h9Agftkaj5zUqav4Uhha9xpnQhS0qp2AApg69ZoTahY=; b=jQ1Ipl7K7Sk+D2D5h0rVqx/JkXmhLB8C9KJRpvzY2Z2LN87fLom3K3y228To6VxA2L NG/TtPcuIliufZaZRiCN2M6hgJ/llE4htfeLL6izJsmh1/ReXc2f2h4H7C6PTz0DiGP2 4hs5Lf3kDIc9ZCGP4prc8KGaVj4s+iIJ8GPEjj94DEKXDW8MB14Z+7/Q4+h7fRIHWEYS aqquZmoH/QzgdWDX/5clpAgpcAT0yxc+SNDYsUd0zYnpV2qojtKtx85tYIEkWhJSeX1/ CPG8/KRFeZYG0YDru5xBshy+u4JDGBEBDA9zF+x9zp9L58twdqveeQdP0L8HsF9ti+wR +Q4g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.63.7 with SMTP id z7mr20880454qah.51.1373317460423; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.216.201 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2ed31aa7639a49ffb9d689795335e88c@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20130618002830.7DF236211A@rfc-editor.org> <7mavr8hhrqsfmcqt77181vqc3g3nl25s1d@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <9beb9558a94c434d84a0ccebfe4cc582@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAJE5ia84biazW1-yOWwUmx94SGLL2daF2PPdWaj6+=5qCaigJg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJL21aYDJKAq233FkZrUqk2H7uboo5GwgfURsB7hnRgkqQ@mail.gmail.com> <2ed31aa7639a49ffb9d689795335e88c@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:04:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ntteZUnFob0ClVwfchWkyllb7I8
Message-ID: <CALaySJKZq7+PktUrHyXr+=3SzvUGki0SbOFRVPjp7KzsGqjZsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "presnick@qti.qualcomm.com" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663)
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:04:21 -0000

> Certainly the original issue as I phrased it is incorrect, so in that sense it's Rejected.
> However, there is a functionality issue as I noted that results in unexpected behavior
> because two RFCs have differing definitions of equivalent.
> The current RFCs do match the implementations, so it's really a design flaw in the RFCs
> not any bug in the implementations or doc per se.
> I think the issue of unexpected behavior isn't an errata per se, it's a protocol "flaw" (in
> some sense) that should be noted somehow.
> A HFDU errata would be one way to do that.  There may be other ways.

If you have a proposal for a change to your errata report, I can edit
it and change it, and then mark it HFDU.  Alternatively, I can just
mark this "Rejected" and let you sort out an alternative.

b