Re: status of rfc6265bis?
Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> Mon, 13 February 2017 19:09 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 25BCF1297F1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adambarth-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 F5oCNIgf445c for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:09:08 -0800 (PST)
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 5E8E11297F0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cdLx0-0003oL-6U for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:06:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:06:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cdLx0-0003oL-6U@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adam@adambarth.com>) id 1cdLwu-0003nT-GI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:06:08 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <adam@adambarth.com>) id 1cdLwo-0008Gv-6C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:06:03 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id s203so56385581oie.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:05:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adambarth-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TfiIsGihd41Br2K2yZgVPRy1mz8KbJp1xArx8Tiww2c=; b=awhUclehegzbh31sldihvy9vnQfkvTV98EyvkvC+7C1LOqRIPAX7gI6K9GeLGYRuMf Gk7gsMs3Qmf/Wp3mN1Ihx8ke6rGqDwLby1/sRKhgfMdzSZKF5SYj4rI/Tjbxns31QKPC KD9IyNVsWUX9wYHIfqktcZR08cSWj+kUvcjwRh4Yyz+ZAlO5ZuT7H9MwozUqAtYRcsYx FKU5I+8eiqsiq5qJxUx8y5XI8TL596OMbf3WZurflF25ZDZjqH+pB1nBriS36PefHlai mCsu7TyUoKf8gbp3ivofJs670abr2S9Si0taiHdbKJ4rbclmM3oPFbS/SpDkNWz13Xyw fejg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TfiIsGihd41Br2K2yZgVPRy1mz8KbJp1xArx8Tiww2c=; b=Lv0YuCp6yCLe5BLrZM0B7Ggbi2+8Gmbg4HGMSQhXdKbosPJ8McZyW0wtgtFn06HOQ8 qBXBaNIPmXYTJUTUVcK+WqX+YpthVSBMXEWdt+POraDdJ9AZMInX3cPG4WBe87+EhyzB yH8CyqORDuzcUo8vvPOtX/QRXWJxttMskXDgN7Qdpe5fBQJgvnLjvttcX5Us8dNI4+5E xq8mqPzIfP6ygYnQQUHc6AmB2eVFsPSfQixp4UFewlcdTUBkfNO0PicfOs6Bbi3l8AVQ tAMZ+Z29h23NJZgjy5BfK9wceOMB2uzGn1pWNdY3O/jp66kwsuxC2tY1B2aA5KWMrnhW YWpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mOB6zWw+OR9+x2+0Yc2SSwWZQDNJqQCOLQ75xz8yrmMJwP8H4lXKz6EFKYNLnIC+w8z4BrsmNfWGU1hg==
X-Received: by 10.202.224.134 with SMTP id x128mr13282914oig.35.1487012736074; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:05:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.214.3 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:05:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9fa13da9-ec62-d952-25c0-81391acbacb4@gmx.de>
References: <9ac4864d-bf50-d2f2-8b9f-9a81d6e30933@gmx.de> <CADYDTCBqE2RbCiubun+YY32PMzqz9NYRChBKfLSKMdps6J4YWA@mail.gmail.com> <9fa13da9-ec62-d952-25c0-81391acbacb4@gmx.de>
From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:05:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CADBiRd2+W2pu5EMQQYyJYDd-nyMB5Z9ZegYEZubu+pWw15WdWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d3010e921aa05486e21e4"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.218.46; envelope-from=adam@adambarth.com; helo=mail-oi0-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cdLwo-0008Gv-6C 275b8f34a2d60682570811f0a600e0a9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: status of rfc6265bis?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CADBiRd2+W2pu5EMQQYyJYDd-nyMB5Z9ZegYEZubu+pWw15WdWA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33484
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 Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2017-02-13 17:23, Daniel Veditz wrote: > >> Currently all the major browser engines agree and return the quotes as >> part of the cookie, which seems to be what the spec says (DQUOTEs are >> part of the cookie value). Most servers seem to work fine with this >> behavior and no one knows what will break if browsers start handling >> this differently. >> > > That's how I read the spec as well; however, I failed to convince the main > Apache HttpClient committer. Maybe there's something we can do to make it > clearer. > That was also my intent when writing that passage. See: https://github.com/abarth/http-state/blob/master/tests/data/parser/value0002-test https://github.com/abarth/http-state/blob/master/tests/data/parser/value0002-expected Adam
- status of rfc6265bis? Julian Reschke
- Re: status of rfc6265bis? Daniel Veditz
- Re: status of rfc6265bis? Julian Reschke
- Re: status of rfc6265bis? Adam Barth
- Re: status of rfc6265bis? Mark Nottingham