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

RE: new cookie draft

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:45:45 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485026B724D@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@bell-labs.com>, "'hedlund@best.com'" <hedlund@best.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Sounds like an even better idea.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dave Kristol [SMTP:dmk@bell-labs.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, March 22, 1997 12:49 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland; 'hedlund@best.com'
> Cc:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	RE: new cookie draft
> 
> 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 16:47:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:32 EDT