[http-state] consensus call: cookie server conformance

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Thu, 27 January 2011 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D263F3A69F1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:03:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.13
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j62e2EEkFWxq for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 749A23A69EE for <http-state@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27076 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jan 2011 23:06:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) ( by oproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2011 23:06:43 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=ySJNEfmiLCCDQ1JzEhOrWzDpPtEzuwcRX3ZfB/EPYBXWLsNU8bUT7ce3gvsBLlGG8ngw8OrbzpkFpeGoNdbNcQg64lrZOjsx/6nT0ff9g9x3RFRNwzb9pMW05kQBaktU;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([] helo=[]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1PiavL-0004gX-JY for http-state@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:06:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4D41FA83.5040302@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:06:43 -0800
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20101027)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: [http-state] consensus call: cookie server conformance
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: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:03:43 -0000


Please see PeterSA's recent message..


Absent explicitly expressed opposing views here on the http-state@ mailing 
list, I'm going to interpret the WG's consensus to be in favor of the 
modification as proposed by PeterSA...

 > First, I proposed that we could modify Section 1 as follows:
 >    Compliant servers MUST limit themselves to the well-behaved profile
 >    defined in Section 4 when generating cookies.
 > Second, I proposed that we could then simplify Section 4 as follows:
 >    This section describes the syntax and semantics of a well-behaved
 >    profile of the Cookie and Set-Cookie headers.

Y'all have 1 week, till 2400h PST 3-Feb-2011 (next Thu night) for expressing 
viewpoints on this.