Re: [http-state] Whether to recommend the cookie protocol (was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 24 February 2010 08:11 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 69EC128C0F1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.802, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iRykLtpLiaa1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E04CA28C0D0 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2010 08:13:22 -0000
Received: from p508FCC0F.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.204.15] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 24 Feb 2010 09:13:22 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19LniFQaT1L0hGHbMO30lcyUXBlOy3rIMGHxLeIVT vAUb7Y6ZDz7iSR
Message-ID: <4B84DF96.7070709@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:13:10 +0100
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: <5c4444771002231855s36391fdfgd30a1ebc57722915@mail.gmail.com> <4C374A2653EB5E43AF886CE70DFC567213CEF5CE46@34093-MBX-C03.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <5c4444771002231929m3749c1c2g7903b444155dafa7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c4444771002231929m3749c1c2g7903b444155dafa7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.64000000000000001
Cc: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Whether to recommend the cookie protocol (was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-04.txt)
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:11:24 -0000

On 24.02.2010 04:29, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
>> The point of confusion for me in:
>>
>> "The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for new applications"
>>
>> was the ambiguity of the word "application". Until you mentioned SIP, I interpreted "application" as a "web application" that I would interact with via my browser. Perhaps the following will help prevent other readers from doing the same as I did:
>>
>> "The cookie protocol is NOT RECOMMENDED for maintaining state in new protocols that operate over HTTP."
>
> Done (with "use" in place of "maintaining state").
> ...

As others have stated, without a definition of "new protocol that 
operates over HTTP" this doesn't work. It's also problematic to put 
BCP14-requirements on spec writers :-)

For instance, do you consider WebDAV or AtomPub "protocols that operate 
over HTTP"? If they

Don't get me wrong; it would be good to discourage use of cookies, but 
this would need to come with more text, outlining the alternatives.


Best regards, Julian