IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3931)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 24 March 2014 15:14 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 581E11A019E for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 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, 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 yL9tmutbjO9s for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233081A01C7 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id m20so6189412qcx.10 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:04 -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=xi0tso7zWF/5VyuD4iGYjCe8McWHcimyc0gskwfaCuA=; b=Tkb8xuUkU4Fh97kO1gPFnqHF6hZHtRQYKXIYpMfwAd4Na7/3tagW50wMQeilb82jck pOWSLvzFO00HObBdZyKo9h5kpKUSscj46S1YuLwV3pzRWh9KUiR3zaj+VI76qjl/KeJx uH9/kzS++lMtcVWvolR4RCVnHqhuJyPMzBAMmzHt7Myt1ArbFUxrSGLf7dJxK4ly5H0V Gk3tT81m+1o8x7eQrBuRG6IrGy8ZKa0uwOslRI1rbhyWxe5oVwFaVzLj0nROmsMjtjcY VGoAYjO0i/I0sOl6zU7N23JF6ljknQ9G7qtbHL6XvcUa011/1yBaV/U24kQw4a/z4Ygt XNTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.69.66 with SMTP id y2mr9553900qai.25.1395674044151; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.42.136 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJc03Z=FT0QnnAaPra7R6zLmPk0VqFxjo+utHJ_AtFrOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140324072303.ECB2E7FC393@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJJc03Z=FT0QnnAaPra7R6zLmPk0VqFxjo+utHJ_AtFrOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:14:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rtvF8FVe1b3pUbSzJf2lmTY3M0I
Message-ID: <CALaySJJgMuXOy7ztZnCLZDWseb758B+2OvR1inj_m3XEQ_+X8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/rj0Epo2qYS9fmKt59nJeyhtbPbo
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>, Семен Холоднов <joker.vd@gmail.com>, "abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu" <abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3931)
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:14:07 -0000

> Semyon, you appear to be adding a requirement that parsers pay
> attention to the weekday token, where the documented algorithm
> specifically ignores it.  And, yet, at the same time you say in your
> note that it's insignificant and can be ignored -- which is exactly
> what the documented algorithm does.  Further, all your change does is
> require the parser to recognize that it found a weekday and set a flag
> that's never used.
>
> I don't understand why you think this was an error.  Can you explain that?

Closing the loop: Semyon explained off list that as he'd read the
algorithm, he thought it would trip over the weekday specification,
where he now sees that it actually has the flexibility to ignore
tokens it doesn't care about, and to handle tokens in any order.

I will mark the report "Rejected", and include an explanation of the
confusion, in case other readers have a similar question.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email