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

Re: Comments on the new cookie draft

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:14:20 -0800 (PST)
To: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970226120838.8287A-100000@ns.viet.net>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2560
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> It isn't clear to me that there's consensus behind the two
> header approach. Is there really?
> It seems like a big switch in directions; we went through
> a lot of angony to get to a draft that we sent out for
> Proposed Standard. Are we now all changing our minds about
> what we want to propose as a standard and propose something
> else?
> I haven't heard a groundswell of "oops, sorry, changed my mind"
> at all. Mainly I see people are grumbling about getting
> backed into a compatibility problem and wondering who to
> blame for the mess.
> I'm less interested in blame, but I do think we need to get
> people's reasoned and considered opinions about what the
> right technical thing to do is, as far as state management,
> in light of both deployed code and also the working group's
> previous stand.

Well, as an author, I will say that I *won't* use any cookie feature in
the new draft that is incompatible with what the installed base of NS/MSIE
works reliably with. Period. So, it seems to me that if the new proposal
breaks the existing base - it is simply DOA as far as deployment goes. You
might as well not issue a standard if no one actually uses it. With the
two header approach I am at least willing to toss in the second header. 
The extra bytes just are not significant to me. 

Benjamin Franz
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 1997 12:17:36 UTC

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