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

RE: Comments on the new cookie draft

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:56:30 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-970226185630Z-901@INET-04-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'dmk@research.bell-labs.com'" <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, "'dwm@xpasc.com'" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2558
After having talked with Dave voice, and based on the comments of this
group, it is clear that there is consensus behind the two header
approach. So this is the appropriate time to bring up other changes to
the cookie specification which were previously dropped in the name of

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	dmk@research.bell-labs.com [SMTP:dmk@research.bell-labs.com]
>Sent:	Monday, February 24, 1997 2:53 PM
>To:	dwm@xpasc.com
>Cc:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
>Subject:	Re: Comments on the new cookie draft
>  [proposal for Nopersist...]
>  > > While I have no objections to this idea, it's the first time I can
>  > > remember its being expressed here.  Did I miss it?
>  > 
>  > No, I believe you and I discussed the concept briefly at the last IETF
>  > I believe we concluded it was a future change because of timing and
>  > compatibility concerns between original and 'new' cookies. I brough it up
>  > now because it looked like a new header was needed for setcookie to
>  > resolve other issues so perhaps there was a window of opportunity here.
>Yes, it probably is an opportunity to toss it into the mix.  I'll see what
>I can come up with.
>Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 1997 11:00:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC