W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Comments on the new cookie draft

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:19:00 -0500
Message-Id: <199702241419.JAA02531@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com

>>>>> "YG" == Yaron Goland writes:

YG> Given that the crux of the issue is the server vendor's needs, it
YG> would seem appropriate for them to comment. Would they rather
YG> sniff UA strings to determine how to properly format their cookies
YG> or would they rather be able to always send out two headers and
YG> know things will work?

  As one of the authors of our embedded server, I can unequivocally
  say that we are not interested in any resolution that requires that
  we examine UA strings.

  For our purposes, a solution that works within the context of the
  new spec and requires that the UA be upgraded to compliance with
  that spec is just fine.  I understand that from some other
  perspectives this would be less desirable.

--
Scott Lawrence             Principal Engineer        <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.                               http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Monday, 24 February 1997 06:20:44 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:30 EDT