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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>:
>
>> 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
>> <[e-mail]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> 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 <[e-mail]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>
>