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

RE: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) " to Propo

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:34:54 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850332A6C9@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov'" <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>, koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3744
I am all in favor of an information RFC documenting how cookies are
implemented today, which covers your concerns Ted.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov
> [SMTP:hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov]
> Sent:	Friday, July 11, 1997 1:25 PM
> To:	koen@win.tue.nl; Yaron Goland; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Cc:	masinter@parc.xerox.com
> Subject:	Re: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) "
> to Propo
> Yaron Goland asked:
> > >
> > >Who intends to implement it?
> Koen Holtman replied:
> > The lynx people.  See the recent message by Foteos Macrides in this
> > thread.
> >
> I am also aware of several efforts to use this mechanism
> in the context of lightweight no-human user agents.  One
> of these, being done by a different group within NASA, will
> be using the lightweight state information available through
> cookies to maintain information about what image data sets
> have been received from and passed to different reporting
> stations.  Having cookies available lets the interacting
> servers know that which sets are complete without having
> to query on each image in each sets; it makes for a nice
> cheap short cut.
> I believe that cookies are in widespread use in passing
> just this kind of shortcut information. Repairing the existing
> State Management Mechanism is important for interoperability;
> we want to make sure everyone is using the same standard
> to create this kind of application. Even if those applications
> would work fine with the original Netscape docs, having a standards
> track doc is important.
> It is being Proposed; if it does not receive adequate implementation
> support, it will not move on.  That's okay.  But we shouldn't short
> circuit the process by assuming that it's dead because two vendors
> won't be updating to it.  The browser market is not the same as the
> useful field of play for internet protocols.
> 		regards,
> 			Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 11 July 1997 13:38:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC