Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies

"Roy T. Fielding" <> Thu, 28 January 2010 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199CA3A6844 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fVA6Ew7gRBdW for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EC13A677C for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6170CA802; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:47:37 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:47:37 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: Daniel Stenberg <>, http-state <>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 6: host-only cookies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:47:19 -0000

On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> 1) Specify host-only cookies to match Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. This is best for security, and I think there's a good chance that IE will adopt host-only cookies in future, but I don't have any citable evidence for this belief.  (The draft currently matches this proposal.)
>> Even though this would be the best security option (and in general I think it makes more sense), I don't think we can neglect that one rather widely used implementation doesn't do it this way.
>> Sites out there that depend on this bug/feature in IE will break. And we know there exist many IE-crafted sites out there (although I guess nobody really knows how many of those that might depend on this particular thing).
>> I'm guessing this is a difference that simply will remain for a good while forward. The non-IE browsers won't do it this way due to security and IE does it this way by tradition and the good old "we won't change any behaviors since then something will break for our users".
>> So, I'm afraid I'm leaning towards (3): Allow both behaviors.
> If Microsoft is unwilling to change their behavior, then I'd like to hear it from them rather than guessing. Are there any Microsoft reps in this group? Can we get any to join?
> I would strongly prefer a single behavior unless we get a clear statement from Microsoft that they absolutely will not change.

On security issues, there is no Microsoft exception.  The spec will
define the more secure alternative and the vendors will adjust their
behavior long before we are done.  Servers are fully-capable of adjusting
their behavior for previously deployed user agents' bugs without further
assistance from the standard.