Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-00.txt

Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Tue, 11 October 2016 10:03 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 15FBE129492 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 03:03:22 -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 (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Gig3BPeH0oKG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 03:03:18 -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 701A91294D3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 03:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bttp2-0002kG-P1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:58:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:58:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bttp2-0002kG-P1@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 <mkwst@google.com>) id 1bttou-0002jJ-Uz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:58:00 +0000
Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mkwst@google.com>) id 1bttor-0003eO-CL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:57:59 +0000
Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l131so731732lfl.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6odrkFfnUypM2SIwD/jnxgNaughk6x7mbY0LFcrQWpY=; b=Pc4XYtJn4h9692QHjea9cRBk7f34DNwftaUEP66Eg4/dwUBnZ9cIpjWvdjowRUOPNh ZYFyJjQL2r6PqHEqafdxmxwr4GowkMe7jCvJ8HLt3GdoUYYhh/te0D5YFmKJ0CyjGaEg GAnAuvUHShHKkxHaU3i8WjNGk8PVfp2x6qNpIQDEhzfiKu87VqwdWfIbnKvmnyEVNS2V 9BoVfLtAhvMl2jnVeLI6/gJvsbYeksS2bO1u445wWaTMIVfF6BqXqD7nbFcLfGErnpmv wZubqelcNOaqiGe9kXnw5q1uEmWsmYSup1h6wulCi4elaiFxQvLxDRECBimqjsjPxoaZ Fipw==
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=6odrkFfnUypM2SIwD/jnxgNaughk6x7mbY0LFcrQWpY=; b=LWLqomMMej9DJcNzbgOzaADDW2t4NPW5YPuogrcjU6N2miwE7/jWB/WcmRzWLgHcUa 1zvFUDwhFXnTTyTTUSqiIAmgRZ1XJCkdK0wSrsndeYX8WV/+Caq4yvszu94uWapR6eI3 mh5kbmUJdUehA/jRyiBovef+hJ7ahNcQQVQu78q6fyfVOEFEUVhb8oWZi7guciHDnJJp p068VXaY2nBh+FEgr096S1wE0CibtOjziUuP1jpxhghiKjd88wgml3R3MlmCjZXmQBbU FVSRdLo7qYPBp3/SjGFO0bl7sUSd4LSkyAU9IBWkNWN2hDfF0kNn+w9QZ+sgJOEcXscD mMmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmZDh593Y7PXE6K7+HN4jcrVNNekZ6Agby4ouSi8LzP9V7MTSSGmvxooG/pUz4MbKhrmNLo7XK6khaL8Cb5
X-Received: by 10.46.0.153 with SMTP id e25mr1724953lji.11.1476179850055; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.20.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <637ed84c-06c9-5d4c-3c7d-0bf6fff606bc@gmx.de>
References: <147614675047.31404.6416168532325888959.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20161011035143.EF7DF13664@welho-filter2.welho.com> <42B9174B-2A49-4E21-B607-E60D05952561@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=f=tNi5mft02y_rhg9tbP8J5wDLSR1=MmJeys+7tUWC0A@mail.gmail.com> <4dbd894c-4389-a246-8a75-16a103f5858e@gmx.de> <CAKXHy=fXPVXJ_-EkjCY2n1MD7-hRoXQb63zsJY8pGruGqe+N2Q@mail.gmail.com> <637ed84c-06c9-5d4c-3c7d-0bf6fff606bc@gmx.de>
From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:57:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=eLCJ=qpzNZknGO0obkK2c2H3pcvRrtM-0D53FXxW2CYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11425dfa96c574053e93e76c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=mkwst@google.com; helo=mail-lf0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.401, 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.336, 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 1bttor-0003eO-CL cca64f58a073fe3294475912339efd7d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKXHy=eLCJ=qpzNZknGO0obkK2c2H3pcvRrtM-0D53FXxW2CYw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32559
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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2016-10-11 11:44, Mike West wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I made this change because of a lint warning that the `sane-cookie-date`
>> definition in the same block was too long. What's a reasonable way of
>> marking both of these up consistently without overflowing the allotted
>> width?
>> ...
>>
>
> This:
>
> -sane-cookie-date  = rfc1123-date
>> -                      ; defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.3.1
>> +sane-cookie-date  =
>> +   <rfc1123-date, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.3.1>
>>
>
SGTM, thanks.

What about `domain-value` below: should we change that to something like
`<subdomain, defined in ...>` as well? It doesn't look like line-breaks are
valid inside `<...>`, so maybe the comments are the right option?

-mike