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

RE: new cookie draft

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 15:48:56 -0500
Message-Id: <l03020902af59f5a2a039@[]>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, "'hedlund@best.com'" <hedlund@best.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2827
At 1:39 AM -0800 3/22/97, Yaron Goland wrote:
>Cool. David, what do you think? We define PORT. If it is included then
>the cookie may only be returned on the port it is received. If it is not
>included then the cookie may be returned on any port within the domain.

Sounds reasonable to me.

At the risk of complexifying things, should Port perhaps take a
comma-separated list of ports to which the cookie can be sent, rather than
just to the port from which it came?  That would provide a middle ground
between one port and all.

Dave Kristol
Received on Saturday, 22 March 1997 12:53:52 UTC

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