IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC6265bis status

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Wed, 05 October 2016 22:30 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 996C71294B6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 KmszbBCREcpm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:30:10 -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 142161294B0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brudb-0001wP-F8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:26:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:26:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brudb-0001wP-F8@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 <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1brudX-0001vi-Ir for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:26:03 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1brudU-0003VL-FK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:26:02 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q192so1458446iod.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=2yrpkOp6kJISFJ8Q3vmWGUvw1dCWs74lEetwWI+NORo=; b=cTADZs/EfIMXGebbCvW64THrw+4et+jKEOsaib/zJQEjddgTElG/eEcVRxs5xhefCb iWGPjAYGsqLSk+GWXQIEUH0Rom2+aJU+zX56gwuM7c0C97dxx4jVceyWlZo9yC0cFVF2 OtH8vKPbZTQoyP+IiJpL2iax5sb3yytd0NuPUXPsKp2o4eF9bpsm6stBTSOlWvayJ5XP YCpr2huo5pg5EQD1nV0l4gyQNqTF9a/PrRqRhHJAaNPX1ngruY7MkzRvjwfjw8F5Z/J5 cg0y2SJeGwpmzgO7zd4FHRmeTqImoxqfEN3L7trjgBddTqmieCSdR5uGmY845zHV5Nmw ITqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2yrpkOp6kJISFJ8Q3vmWGUvw1dCWs74lEetwWI+NORo=; b=dPa8oingOTIzphiccuaFb47Yi4Mc2UVEgMPnQbXu0434i1Xft3G5JBHC1HbdI1uYDA VqdnvUk3wATj7P4iNLlVh+VU53fM8Tl7UlK/MwUeyFjqXsV1bZmjNQALKHAJEcO2+RF0 n25nFM2uE/H6ur0bLxIVjEq0jfM7K/Xi7fffAiqyO2pAHzg5RQqKFlXJfyFXHikMQ/g8 Op3y8cmJXO7XbNJx7uCpZ3baZ/nqD6clpzm7PqxLL8GBrOAClYM1IaVPKcZ/2AE+drLw JwbKJHDZkKkph8BzGWvO/xNsvFHyivBWIVXfS+3DmYcRj51xbcAZn9AkfkLqtdtL/KkJ E9YA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnqWrA3ueXD4ax439Q10bdO7YU2a8IYElndR8xUJUwEifpLJuwmLfLJUbAD6OEtWraG0poXbxzTBhYIow==
X-Received: by 10.107.12.88 with SMTP id w85mr12668010ioi.198.1475706334425; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.158.207 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:25:33 -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: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 08:25:33 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: qIjpP2qcx6-2QDDDcqDWqTW-uxk
Message-ID: <CACweHNA547pZ2uJwiitqPMfkqqk2O+V49qF7dttbm4UBRDcy5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Manico <jim@manicode.com>
Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e012adb38fe053e25a73e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.137, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1brudU-0003VL-FK 662a29cb5f13edfe78e071b95f6d9d3c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC6265bis status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNA547pZ2uJwiitqPMfkqqk2O+V49qF7dttbm4UBRDcy5w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32495
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 6 October 2016 at 08:12, 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.
>
>
​But that's how you update cookies. Doesn't matter if it's in a single
request, or subsequently; sending set-cookie with the same name (and other
attributes) and a new value overwrites the old cookie.

In this case it's just confirming that "domain=.example.org" is treated the
same as "domain=example.org"

(Before I should have said: that seems to be how Chrome treats it, since
httpbin.org isn't storing any state)

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status