Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-cookie-10 ?
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Fri, 27 August 2010 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 364433A687B for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.619, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 aA3fa-Ofw8tn for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F01C3A683E for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2010 22:22:24 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-208-027.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO hive) [94.223.208.27] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 28 Aug 2010 00:22:24 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18zw9YM/xozo7I3aRmIk6L4SQs4EUl1WHDyaI1ein ZwcVJzSjYQyvpc
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:22:23 +0200
Message-ID: <fddg76t5nqdn28a2ft639i6a6k51um2stg@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4C759235.6010000@KingsMountain.com> <5l7g76hcdhobfsd4nrilfhuvth42br7sjf@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <AANLkTikFsb0v5h-PszE1jgtrUk1str9vo+4gzQ9CTug=@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFsb0v5h-PszE1jgtrUk1str9vo+4gzQ9CTug=@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-cookie-10 ?
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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:21:56 -0000
* Adam Barth wrote: >According to <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00834.html>, >I seem to have asked you for a test case, which I don't have a record >of you ever providing: I did not. Knowing nothing about your test suite I could only have pro- vided a Set-Cookie header with a date in 1969. You would spend more time asking me to make one, wait for and then read through the response, then verify the test case and incorporate it into your test suite, than just making the test case yourself, so I didn't think you were being serious. >In any case, the test suite isn't done yet and it's not a prerequisite >for finishing this document. The idea wasn't to add something to your test suite, but to change the draft so it defines date processing in line with major implementations (that being a goal of the specification) or note in the document why it defines something that is unintuitive and contrary to running code, so implementers may be persuaded to change their implementations. I'm fine with asking the IETF as a whole to review the document even if there are unresolved issues such as this, but then they should be noted someplace so reviewers do not waste time reporting issues that are al- ready known. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Shelby Moore
- [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-c… =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Shelby Moore
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Shelby Moore
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Adam Barth
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Shelby Moore
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Adam Barth
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… =JeffH
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpsta… Bjoern Hoehrmann