Re: [http-state] Minor things concerning draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-01

Georg Koppen <g.koppen@jondos.de> Tue, 12 January 2010 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <g.koppen@jondos.de>
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 B619D3A6919 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 n7-et8scGTuI for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jondos.de (mail.jondos.de [87.230.20.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A413A67D8 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (jondos.de [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jondos.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1D417D38026 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:54:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.jondos.de
Received: from mail.jondos.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lvps87-230-20-138.dedicated.hosteurope.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l1740vfTwcQv for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:54:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.2.130] (p5DDAB4C5.dip.t-dialin.net [93.218.180.197]) by mail.jondos.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B14D17D38002 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:54:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4B4C54F6.3060307@jondos.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:54:46 +0100
From: Georg Koppen <g.koppen@jondos.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF httpstate WG <http-state@ietf.org>
References: <4B476F1E.7080003@KingsMountain.com> <7789133a1001080950s24c1df4fg742546be69f657ee@mail.gmail.com> <4B4C48C2.8020209@jondos.de> <7789133a1001120234i727449c3s69fb6691eae77cea@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a1001120234i727449c3s69fb6691eae77cea@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [http-state] Minor things concerning draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-01
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: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:54:58 -0000

Hello again,

>> 5) Section 5 says that there are some algorithms specified for some
>> tasks concerning the cookie protocol but the user agents do not have to
>> follow these ("user agents are free to implement the cookie
>> protocol..."). But, for instance in Section 5.1.1., there it says "The
>> user agent MUST use the following algorithm..." Thus, am I free to
>> implement it differently or not? It's a bit confusing...
> 
> The operative requirement is:
> 
>       <t>Although some parts of the cookie protocol are specified
>       algorithmically, user agents are free to implement the cookie protocol
>       in any manner as long as their resultant behavior is "black-box"
>       indistinguishable from a user agent that implements the protocol as
>       described.</t>
> 
> Is there some way we can be clearer that user agents are free to
> implement the protocol however they like?  

Why MUST the user use these algorithms? Wouldn't it be enough if the
user MAY use them? I mean, they are free to implement the protocol
however they want to do it, provided they come to the same results.

Georg