Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Sat, 29 January 2011 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 BE9473A687F for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6]
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 jmqrfexx7E3J for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338193A680E for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1) with ESMTP id p0TM81Y3032470; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:08:01 +0100
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:08:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101292300070.1561@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)
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, 29 Jan 2011 22:04:51 -0000

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Adam Barth wrote:

>> I consider "my" date parser compliant, but it parses the string in a 
>> different way than described in the spec.
>
> When you say "in a different way", do you mean via a different algorithm or 
> that your implementation outputs different dates for some input strings?

I mean that it uses a different algorithm but ends up with the same output for 
most strings and certainly for all strings using sensible formats.

For really crazy inputs the output may differ a bit, like for example my 
parser is less forgiving on rubbish in the middle of the string as in "Thu, 
999999999999-Aug-2007 20:49:07 GMT" or "Sat, 15-Apr-17 boink:z 21:01:22".

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se