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: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:53:11 -0400
Message-Id: <l0302090baff2efa49892@[]>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@aimnet.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3771
At 11:27 PM -0700 7/14/97, David W. Morris wrote:
[hisresponses to my responses to his comments to the above I-D, with
additional comments by me on comments by Foteos Macrides]

>> > An earlier comment was made about quotes in the "Port" attribute,
>> > but I think there are additional problems with the syntax as
>> > specified and suggest that:
>> >
>> > ::                 |       "Port" [ "=" <"> 1#port-list <"> ]
>> > :: port-list       |       1#DIGIT
>> >
>> > be replaced with:
>> >
>> >                    |       "Port" [ "=" portnum | <"> 1#portnum <"> ]
>> >    portnum         =       1*DIGIT
>> >
>> > If I correctly understand RFC2068 syntax, 1#X means 1 or more
>> > occurances of X delimited by commas. My changes fix the "="
>> > in port-list, the 1#DIGIT in port list and make the quotes
>> > optional for the single port case.

You're absolutely right about my having botched the syntax.  I'll have to
fix this up.  Thanks!

Concerning making the quotes optional for a single port number:  I accept
Foteos's argument that it's easy to handle.  I'll allow that in the spirit
of "be liberal in what you accept", an implementation may want to handle it
that way, but I still think it's a really bad idea for the syntax to be
*specified* that way.  Apart from making the syntax (marginally) more
complex, the (proposed) syntax above invites errors of omission, where a
server goes from sending a single port number to sending more than one and
the implementor has to remember to add quotes to get it right.

Concerning remarks about requiring FQHN:  I'll have to think this through
more carefully when I get back from vacation.

Concerning Foteos's suggestion about reserving the attribute name
"CommentURL", sure.  Concerning CommentURL itself, I'll think about that
some more.  The risk in adding it is that supporting it has implications
for browsers and browser vendors, and they haven't seemed too keen about
RFC 2109 (and successors) as it is.

Concerning Foteos's suggestion that all the attribute names be reserved
from use as cookie NAMEs, it's unnecessary.  The cookie NAME=VALUE always
comes first in the Set-Cookie2 header, so you can always distinguish it
from any attributes.

Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 1997 16:10:58 UTC

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