IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Summary of discussion of Ticket 5 (Cookie ordering)

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Fri, 16 April 2010 18:15 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 6FA513A6937 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 69c4iA62JjRM for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [83.168.254.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D62E3A6A16 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [83.168.254.42]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9) with ESMTP id o3GIEaMW017790; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:14:36 +0200
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:14:36 +0200
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <j2x5c4444771004160944q8a4412e8v75132719db02bfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1004162009340.15807@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <5c4444771002151547k75bbd0e7rfd2ccf735bdb2e37@mail.gmail.com> <u2o5c4444771004110954tfbb069ddj6f80356bc4bd47d3@mail.gmail.com> <C779AE1F-EE2B-4D87-A3F1-C91A425E339D@apple.com> <z2m5c4444771004151615r10f95fen683406b64abff6fa@mail.gmail.com> <l2j5c4444771004151627i3cc43a37n9f3783e4be04458a@mail.gmail.com> <4BC837C8.80501@securenet.de> <4BC874B4.1080103@gmail.com> <4BC87EE5.2030305@securenet.de> <j2x5c4444771004160944q8a4412e8v75132719db02bfe@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: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Summary of discussion of Ticket 5 (Cookie ordering)
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, 16 Apr 2010 18:15:34 -0000

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Adam Barth wrote:

> The spec already requires that servers not depend on the ordering.

But only in a half-baked way. If we really wanted servers to not rely on the 
order we should not tell clients to sort them in any particular way. Since 
what is the point in sorting cookies when nobody is supposed to rely on the 
order?

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email