IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound State?

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Mon, 18 March 2013 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D9D21F8D03 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xf4S8aCg10Ma for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BCF21F8717 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.150]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2ICEq6L004271; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:14:52 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {51470426-1-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.54]) by DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:14:52 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound State?
Thread-Index: AQHOIGcFEBuYGjBbAkmU2taz3PSEppirQgsA
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <D771EC64-65A1-4EE1-A511-3FE750257E71@checkpoint.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwge7VBNWvWG01UN4j9=1nB+b8prusSVxgOpOcNLbZT8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwge7VBNWvWG01UN4j9=1nB+b8prusSVxgOpOcNLbZT8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.24.195]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <BAEB641E3E30F54AA012CE83E37C6565@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound State?
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:14:56 -0000

I'm kind of partial to "session management"

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

> The main substantive query that seemed to be raised in the meeting was
> what we are going to call this session continuation thing. I am not
> that worried about confusion with HTTP-Auth. Folk who know, know.
> 
> But one of the objectives here is to replace cookies. So choosing a
> name that positions the spec as a successor to authentication cookies
> is actually quite important.
> 
> 
> How about Session Bound State as the term of art?
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email