IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-state] Updated draft

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 17 August 2009 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 104AD3A6CCE for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.415, BAYES_40=-0.185]
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 8Y0irlaUj2Jv for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 592FF3A6F31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2009 17:44:12 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.117]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp037) with SMTP; 17 Aug 2009 19:44:12 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19dspFxuyxdFhm0BIsgIo0jFZmKQnefSCMiF4IyXY opO5LaUb75p6Pv
Message-ID: <4A8996DE.4030905@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:43:58 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <7789133a0908151008p35ff30e6w2761368fe70d41a6@mail.gmail.com> <7789133a0908151642w47c1dbf1x48268e657b0d71cc@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908161440520.25988@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908161032l2265ce5fg966c434f1b05aa64@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908161952060.13789@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908161131s5741d457q812b5e4213452054@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908162035140.13789@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <4A889417.9020709@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908170929100.22132@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908170853r5a81b84cu1308049256f51d2c@mail.gmail.com> <7789133a0908170908r4e3e8d30v7187bbf67f76b95c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a0908170908r4e3e8d30v7187bbf67f76b95c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.65
Cc: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Updated draft
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:44:29 -0000

Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Adam Barth<ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
>> There's a clear cost to not specifying the sort order: new
>> implementations that follow the spec will behave differently than all
>> the major browsers.  However, you haven't articulated a reason why we
>> ought not to specify the sort order.
> 
> Put another way, if you were writing a new cookie implementation
> today, why would you want to use any other sort order?  In the end,
> you have to pick an ordering.  You might as well pick the one that's
> used by 99% of the market.  Instead of forcing new implementations to
> reverse engineer this information, we should just say.
> ...

Why would you have to pick an ordering?

In Java, I might just drop then into a HashSet, and never worry about 
ordering...

BR, Julian

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status