IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> Tue, 04 August 2009 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bil@corry.biz>
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 24D2228C464 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.944
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.944 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 UX8yXqcmK2Nn for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mindio.com (app1.bc.anu.net [193.189.141.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D6F28C449 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [98.212.72.151]) by mail.mindio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFA0FCEEB; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:37:29 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4A7855AF.2080505@corry.biz>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:37:19 -0500
From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908040015310.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im> <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908040911070.15554@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908040219s14ebdd97g4d092f90865f3c50@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a0908040219s14ebdd97g4d092f90865f3c50@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state charter
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:38:06 -0000

Adam Barth wrote on 8/4/2009 4:19 AM: 
> I think we should obsolete those cookie specs and replace them with a
> standards track cookie spec that is actually useful.

I agree.  How do we then resolve the concerns Dan Winship brought up?  Should we bring them up on the ietf-http-wg list and ask for their advice?  I did see that the latest httpbis draft contains a note about Cookies violating the header-combining rule:

-----
      Note: the "Set-Cookie" header as implemented in practice (as
      opposed to how it is specified in [RFC2109]) can occur multiple
      times, but does not use the list syntax, and thus cannot be
      combined into a single line.  (See Appendix A.2.3 of [Kri2001] for
      details.)  Also note that the Set-Cookie2 header specified in
      [RFC2965] does not share this problem.

from: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-07#section-4.2
-----

I'll have to dig through the ietf-http-wg list to see what their thoughts were when they created the note.

The quote above references a document from David Kristol about the history of cookies and his experience with creating RFC2964.  Looks like a cautionary tale:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0105/0105018v1.pdf


- Bil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email