[http-state] Date parsing (was Re: consensus call: cookie server conformance)

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sat, 29 January 2011 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.com>
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 7DBAB3A6866 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:51:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.739, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Dha7FuW2Iqqf for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5E23A683F for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1762195gwb.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.204.7 with SMTP id b7mr1003890ybg.150.1296338094894; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r24sm974718yba.6.2011.01.29.13.54.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so4039281iyi.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.14.136 with SMTP id g8mr4565525iba.114.1296338092573; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.35.13 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:54:22 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikTG0cu-q+OxLFvc9WeLgZMrfooZ9Ndoc=AmGDq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: [http-state] Date parsing (was Re: 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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:51:46 -0000

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>; wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> replacing, say, the date parsing algorithm that's been made up on the
>> spot, and not doing what is proposed here, namely describing the proto- col
>> in a manner that is inconsistent with the vast majority of servers.
>
> I read the date parser algorithm as describing a parser with a set of
> capabilities that a date parser for cookies should have. It doesn't say that
> the parser has to work exactly like that.
>
> I consider "my" date parser compliant, but it parses the string in a
> different way than described in the spec.

When you say "in a different way", do you mean via a different
algorithm or that your implementation outputs different dates for some
input strings?

Adam