Re: errata for cookie spec

  > Two small comments on the errata:
  > 
  > 1. The section `Compatibility with MS's implementation' states the problem,
  > but no solution.  I'd prefer it if you append something like
  > 
  >  Therefore, servers should be careful in sending complex cookies that use
  >  this specification to legacy HTTP/1.0 user agents.  If an unknown HTTP/1.0
  >  user agent is encountered, a server can determine its compatibility with
  >  this specification by first returning a response which sets a simple
  >  non-persistent cookie, and then examining the cookie header of any
  >  subsequent request.

Okay, but....  Because the cookie spec. is separable from HTTP/1.1, and
because it will become a standard after HTTP/1.1, there's no assurance
that even HTTP/1.1 user agents will follow this spec.  So it might be
wise to avoid reference to HTTP/1.0.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "unknown HTTP/1.0 user agent"?
 > 
  > 
  > 2. Benjamin Franz noted an ambiguity which could be interpreted in a
  > perverse way.  In the following part of section 4.3.5:
  > 
  >  When it makes an unverifiable transaction, a user agent must enable a
  >  session only if a cookie with a domain attribute D was sent or received
  >                                                                 ^^^^^^^^  
  >  in its origin transaction, such that the host name in the Request-URI of
  >  the unverifiable transaction domain-matches D.
  > 
  > `received' really means `recieved and not rejected'.  So it is better to
  > replace `recieved' by `accepted'.

Okay.  It's actually better *not* to replace "received" with "recieved",
and I will replace "received" with "accepted".  :-)

Dave Kristol

Received on Thursday, 13 February 1997 13:13:51 UTC