Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4044)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 06 July 2014 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23E91A032B for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N9afSiuyg8wx for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94511A02FA for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id el20so2236846lab.21 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:37:07 -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:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bb02tNMJi+MfWKSg1Sf+OukBP79mQomafZWIXdDmqm0=; b=kb69B6frwaCWi4Z5D+xSc205v24MbaM2ERr2Eh0bxZZlyqhEuygvr1iRyYa8cQqD3l WRdIpTv+M0PiZ+xIfN91OIUiFkOioa6bqo8ypeObNA65HgccLAFHtnO6xetvrGVwJZea PTT2kZqH9TGCCFtGK+kP04y6ncsDIMYnofhaVuO5TBA7o6L6GN7344W/q2fnDjrZ53nw Q7nJWy7YWac6CyeKoWvTYGWEvXuVSbQkKHamqkNr1rk9trZ9TskMoCIzacFu9fZMqvll 7wpCpZvo/el5SEyAfVQCzmysQz/6cwI0G/Y4qrg/hVWFAH7oyzOkBq33eNo711juy7uz sjjg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.164.146 with SMTP id yq18mr18918663lbb.5.1404671827035; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.104.80 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL38MXLiN56r8=-KmJsUUW-OLwDM3vJ0ouvFmTLsFGJLqXM1Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140706143958.45E66180015@rfc-editor.org> <CAJE5ia8eUw-fouPHF7L1kQsZriDAGe-32fzy6aCFFaeGQDN45g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL38MXLiN56r8=-KmJsUUW-OLwDM3vJ0ouvFmTLsFGJLqXM1Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 14:37:06 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SNx_aIN3PQREhmJaSAWy77SIen8
Message-ID: <CALaySJKaJ_Q0DytCCgoZW9DwzWTSSfg=7nJLv0TvchWKvb5cDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133bd1846cc2204fd8aa5d3
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/rKLTEJHYKacvAOx9A6U-18_RZ28
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (4044)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 18:37:11 -0000

The point of errata, though, is to record errors in the documents... not to
suggest improvements.  I don't see that either of these is reporting an
error.  Do you?

There is an issue here: we need a way to record comments and suggestions,
and we don't have that.

But given what errata are meant for, my inclination is to mark both of
these as "rejected", much as I appreciate the value of your comments.

Barry, Applications AD

On Sunday, July 6, 2014, Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Hello Adam,
>
> As I stated in the notes, whether I got it right or wrong doesn't really
> matter in my opinion.
> In either case, the second action item might seem a bit surprising.
>
> If it is stated that way, it's probably because there is a reason behind
> it. Basically, I'm just suggesting to enhance a bit the explanation behind
> it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre.
>
>
> 2014-07-06 17:56 GMT+02:00 Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ietf@adambarth.com');>>:
>
>> I don't think we should accept this errata.  This errata adds
>> non-normative text that isn't strictly correct.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:39 AM, RFC Errata System
>> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org');>> wrote:
>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6265,
>> > "HTTP State Management Mechanism".
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > You may review the report below and at:
>> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&eid=4044
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Type: Technical
>> > Reported by: Pierre Lepropre <plepropre@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','plepropre@gmail.com');>>
>> >
>> > Section: 5.3
>> >
>> > Original Text
>> > -------------
>> > Otherwise:
>> >
>> >    Set the cookie's persistent-flag to false.
>> >
>> >    Set the cookie's expiry-time to the latest representable
>> >    date.
>> >
>> >
>> > Corrected Text
>> > --------------
>> > Otherwise:
>> >
>> >    Set the cookie's persistent-flag to false.
>> >
>> >    Set the cookie's expiry-time to the latest representable
>> >    date. This is a best-effort approach to ensure that the cookie
>> >    will effectively expire when "the current session is over"
>> >    (as defined by the user agent) and not anytime before.
>> >
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> > The second action item isn't necessarily obvious for an
>> implementer/reader. If I got the intention right, then I believe it might
>> improve the "user-friendly" rating of this document. Otherwise, it might
>> still be beneficial to explicit a bit the reasoning behind that action.
>> >
>> > Instructions:
>> > -------------
>> > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC6265 (draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-23)
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Title               : HTTP State Management Mechanism
>> > Publication Date    : April 2011
>> > Author(s)           : A. Barth
>> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> > Source              : HTTP State Management Mechanism
>> > Area                : Applications
>> > Stream              : IETF
>> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>
>