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

RE: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft (Warning: Rant Enclo sed)

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:44:04 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485025666CE@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2743
Those arguing for the IETF enacting social policy have said that one of
the problem with cookies as they exist now is that, sure, browsers allow
you to selectively not receive cookies but you get pounded by warnings
for every single cookie you don't receive. The social engineers don't
like this behavior so they have decided to use their IETF stick to beat
browser makers into acting the way they want. 

I won't even sideline into the question of what happened to the free
market and the right to use other products. I suppose we can all look
forward to a small group of academics using standards to force products
to work the way they want from now on. Say goodbye to GUI and hello to
command lines! I can't wait until the requirement "Your product must not
crash, EVER, ohh and yeah, it has to run on LINUX." Is it just me or is
this all getting way to close to a Dilbert cartoon?

So, now, with the mighty standard bashing into the heads of browser
makers, exactly what sort of dialog do the social engineers think will
go up to the average user the first time they hit an "unverified"
transaction? What response do you think 99% of the users out there will
click? Oh yeah, gee, I forget, we all win because the user has a choice.
After all users are clearly being brainwashed by the Evil Media (TM) and
therefore must be saved from their own product choices.

I figure I should just relax and let it ride. After all, the reality of
the spec was decided before the last call was ever taken.

Of course, that is just my opinion, I could be wrong,


PS The reason I let this rant get posted to the list is because I
strongly believe that it accurately reflects the feelings of a
significant number of people. If the IETF would continue being relevant
it had better at least consider what those people are feeling and why.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to change what it has done
w/the cookie spec but it does mean that there is a problem and it is in
everybody's interest that it be addressed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Gregory A. Meinke [SMTP:gmeinke@acm.org]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 18, 1997 4:23 PM
> To:	Phillip Lindsay
> Cc:	Rob Hartill; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft
> Phillip Lindsay wrote:
> > 
> > Rob Hartill wrote:
> > 
> >   Cookies are (currently) useful for advertising models, but they
> are
> > 
> >   certainly not a necessity.
> > 
> > Despite what is implied above,  many ad delivery implementations
> > currently "require" cookies to function correctly (e.g., sequence,
> > impression link).
> If the major browser vendors support this new standard as well as 
> they support the old standard we don't have to worry about cookie
> support going away for a very long time ;->
> thank you drive through
> -- 
> Gregory A. Meinke   | If I don't meet you no more in this world
> IMGIS, Inc.         | Then I'll see you in the next one.
> gmeinke@imgis.com   | Don't be late.  --J. Hendrix
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 23:25:05 UTC

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