IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC6265bis status

Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB5A1294C5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8UAiUny6hJA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB51F129439 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brunw-0001ho-Bx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:36:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:36:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brunw-0001ho-Bx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <dveditz@mozilla.com>) id 1bruns-0001h7-0l for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:36:44 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com ([209.85.218.51]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <dveditz@mozilla.com>) id 1brunq-00041T-Hp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:36:43 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id r126so2498019oib.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hR2g2Fl4sxTpqbAPXiMSC9G2emyXO5SwG6uRXgxuNTA=; b=GwbfniRTRmPz59nnjkUYX61V6kiZo6eSJkCQI+kjVnJH3NXIzJoEjUX0BiW+Tu36yK GPcmz2WGzwK8lc0XcMRnyK7YlN3H68RiH1qUzC8Sm3aIMlyHfvP0efodBwXbkALXLoGm l9l9XUPwobi2HHdwPr80mkopXACNCvMyzpqxA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hR2g2Fl4sxTpqbAPXiMSC9G2emyXO5SwG6uRXgxuNTA=; b=LS54L6HYx3YQnJGRYRS5dWuBv3JA1KP+3nlTCfFbJx6qie3jdb7cAzvzU1DXDTS+2e Cm+TE1y8Y6vzlC2Vc2+cEANAj92fT34q8TevLJGTz3JSuNY+g64WCWEDC+npQTe8XYMH sVAjzHcs2yb8IeT1zRbiIM3yV9w+LB82I7oT6bQMaqkuKfLW7AXq7kTR5YdURaWBXgIa 2K7RNVkThhyN2AFY6rK5zMbdyROypEkVWVH5JeLjqJLGOAt7RTG4I0ccaUWOOe2bR9Dm 6MIFsUIM+RW9tSsiHfwP9eBaks9DDwtx+Y+zbmRgCSSjlQMckcPT3hXwLJ8nJXwEBUiM F4aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RllLxIB9V2MR7FQtnZggWa2VtIVuvGzymI/jklCPMpR+Clt3sUAFN2HzgDPt3W7cEgQPzpkbdCIXDZNEyOd
X-Received: by 10.157.43.201 with SMTP id u67mr6731312ota.76.1475706976111; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.89.6 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1F5217DE-A935-4B36-BC3D-592270AC43C1@manicode.com>
References: <2D2BCE5A-4EFD-453F-A928-40200715E226@mnot.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610050751260.28134@tvnag.unkk.fr> <CADYDTCCrfDpHACHpg2ApOjkiFcZFfcV425FCWU9h4RTFjADwoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACweHNCN-u2vLg3whMne=0P1tep53K3nWHqiSSuD9sMA5JuSvw@mail.gmail.com> <1F5217DE-A935-4B36-BC3D-592270AC43C1@manicode.com>
From: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:36:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CADYDTCBjVV5Sta8hn_XVec+6F0Gm3R46+Rp15MVjs3KWXB0PzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Manico <jim@manicode.com>
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d00d41aaa59053e25ceff"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.51; envelope-from=dveditz@mozilla.com; helo=mail-oi0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.687, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1brunq-00041T-Hp 2e7387ab0bb4ac1e843b7b15c045b96f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC6265bis status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CADYDTCBjVV5Sta8hn_XVec+6F0Gm3R46+Rp15MVjs3KWXB0PzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32496
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Jim Manico <jim@manicode.com> wrote:

> I think this is bad behavior. If multiple cookies from the same domain
> have the same name yet different values, I think all values should all be
> returned. This suggested behavior is also how get parameters work in order
> to support multi-select lists.
>

​A browser considers name-domain-path a unique cookie. if a server sends
two cookies with the same name-domain-path then it's really setting and
then updating the same cookie from the browser's POV. The browser cannot
return both values because it has forgotten the first.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email