Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Fri, 31 July 2009 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 D54F63A6D2B for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 dJLnDRVOMX-d for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com (mail-yx0-f173.google.com [209.85.210.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FCC3A6CB4 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe3 with SMTP id 3so2213733yxe.29 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.178.19 with SMTP id a19mr3740418ybf.349.1249061581650; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:32:40 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0907311032i75ab400dl55dfa980a52ce5ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state charter
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:33:03 -0000

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Dan Winship<dan.winship@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand things, we cannot do this as a revision to 2965, because
> 2965 is Standards Track, and this new document would have to be merely
> Informational, since we'd be documenting the existing lousy security
> model and violations of the HTTP spec in real-world cookies, and that
> would not be acceptable in a Standards Track protocol.
>
> So I think the goal should be to first produce an Informational RFC,
> describing real-world cookies, and then either (a) have 2965
> reclassified as historical, or (b) write a second RFC obsoleting 2965
> and providing a new profile of Cookie/Set-Cookie usage that is both
> acceptable to the IETF and compatible with existing usage. (So it would
> end up being a lot more like 2109 then 2965.)

This perspective seems somewhat unhelpful to implementors.  Perhaps
our efforts would be better spent in a community that values the
document we intend to produce.

Adam