Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3430)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 17 December 2012 16:17 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 17E0521F8B35 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w0t6PlIHB9mG for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A372A21F8B64 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so7398004vcb.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:19 -0800 (PST)
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=gXxGjwQy8Xq+fXlYQEiPnO0kr1MDxdugQetXU/sNsF0=; b=z2GLG3ptl5n7GjquRRGkA2VXhJ2yfgVGMX9OpooL9qAb81CbKch96sAqDlfxQ6FmjB blOki54s4ZIAD/Mh6lo8mZ0XYeu2vSxl/90SCLIgPwsR3gwzpuzvSVIbXhC/eBXqDYfe u/boYmguWQlMLnSM+GQc83eUPB/Casbc40470b8AHhzk8935Zccp38N2gTeIivEnVu8M 8V9fl8aMVJ5ifg9k3MlNUtllYkykMPh+GEY6GX6jKA5rC8Fwzr4pHISmdwW5n1L+zdXY M6MWnvdf8cdtvypYBqxhygZDF43Ic8xzAfbNqOzKl2fBxPgd39rBwGj2SY/AMju2RRZt X3QA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.69.201 with SMTP id g9mr20663586vdu.98.1355761039079; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.28.231 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:17:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50CF4129.9080705@gmail.com>
References: <20121213222237.C5069B1E006@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJK6YimPpKK6bbnAZBwNyqhjD2zNCJFSQFbQSx_40nQv1Q@mail.gmail.com> <50CF4129.9080705@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:17:18 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PFgjKgVKxu6Kd8_shxHNbRmHGfw
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+R_88OOG=Z1qRo+xECN7ubi6C2-AdFetYpwodBema6zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, http-state@ietf.org, zhong.j.yu@gmail.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3430)
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, 17 Dec 2012 16:17:29 -0000

Hi, Dan.

>> Actually, it's much worse than that: the ABNF for max-age-av does not
>> match the text in Section 5.2.2 at all
>
> Yes, that's intentional, and explained in the introduction:
>
>>    To maximize interoperability with user agents, servers SHOULD limit
>>    themselves to the well-behaved profile defined in Section 4 when
>>    generating cookies.
>>
>>    User agents MUST implement the more liberal processing rules defined
>>    in Section 5, in order to maximize interoperability with existing
>>    servers that do not conform to the well-behaved profile defined in
>>    Section 4.

Oy.  Yes, as I read more, I see the various bits of this.  I wish the
document had said all this in a different way, making it clearer that
the ABNF is not normative in the way it usually is.

Anyway, what this tells me is that this erratum should be "Rejected",
with an explanation related to what you sent in your message. Thanks.

Barry