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

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Wed, 24 February 2010 04:09 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 D8A5128C17C for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:09:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 l9E5hKxkZW2q for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com (mail-yx0-f188.google.com [209.85.210.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0869928C14C for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so966039yxe.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.94.18 with SMTP id r18mr202718ybb.301.1266984693030; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f191.google.com (mail-iw0-f191.google.com [209.85.223.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm557280yxe.20.2010.02.23.20.11.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn29 with SMTP id 29so2973805iwn.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.150.4 with SMTP id w4mr212335ibv.58.1266984691105; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B84A55E.6000304@stpeter.im>
References: <5c4444771002231855s36391fdfgd30a1ebc57722915@mail.gmail.com> <4B84A55E.6000304@stpeter.im>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:11:11 -0800
Message-ID: <5c4444771002232011x7ef1a15dj23a5b58357915fa6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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 04:09:31 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 2/23/10 7:55 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:15:04 +0100, <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> The cookie protocol has many
>>>> historical infelicities and should be avoided for new applications of
>>>> HTTP.
>>>
>>> What exactly does this mean?
>>
>> It means that we don't think new applications of HTTP (e.g., SIP)
>> should use the cookie protocol.  Cookies have caused significant
>> security problems for the web.  For new applications, it's probably a
>> good idea to use another state management mechanism.
>
> Could you explain the sense in which SIP is an application of HTTP?

Oh, I could be using the wrong terminology here.  How would you
describe the relation between SIP and HTTP?

> I'm
> trying to understand which of the following best captures what you are
> saying:
>
> 1. Non-web technologies SHOULD NOT use cookies but instead SHOULD define
> their own application-specific methods for state management.
>
> 2. Non-web technologies that define bindings to HTTP (e.g., the HTTP
> binding for XMPP defined in [BOSH]) SHOULD NOT use cookies even within
> such a binding but instead SHOULD define their own application-specific
> methods for state management.

I'm not sure what the difference between these options is.  I'm not
sure we should recommend application-specific state management.
Instead, we should aim for a general-purpose HTTP state management
mechanism that doesn't suck (in phase two, of course).

Adam