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

Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft

From: Dwight Merriman <dmerriman@doubleclick.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:46:05 -0500
To: hedlund@best.com
Cc: http <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, dmk@allegra.att.com, montulli@netscape.com, yarong@microsoft.com
Message-Id: <19970317184729847.AAA1016@dell>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2688
Agreed.  But I think if one looks at the long run, which is what is most
important for a standard, all the proxies will work properly.

I just find it kind of weird that the RFC specs nondeterministic behavior
-- sometimes cookies work, sometimes they don't, and you can't always know
when they will without a lot of complexity.


> From: M. Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
> To: Dwight Merriman <dmerriman@doubleclick.net>
> Cc: http <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>; dmk@allegra.att.com;
montulli@netscape.com; yarong@microsoft.com
> Subject: Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft
> Date: Monday, March 17, 1997 12:34 PM
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Dwight Merriman wrote:
> > Designers of web sites (at least the large percentage who will
advertise on
> > the web) will have to take into account that cookie assignments on
> > home page may fail a large percentage of the time.  If they wish to
> > number of unique visitors to their site, they will get a highly
> > reading since often multiple cookies will be assignied to a single user
> > before one "sticks".
> This is reportedly already the case to due to faulty proxies.  I believe
> Hotwired keeps an extensive database of which proxies fail to properly
> pass-through cookie assignments as a result.
> My point is simply that other system faults already require the
> you mention.
> M. Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Received on Monday, 17 March 1997 10:48:39 UTC

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