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@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 97 15:51:29 EDT
Message-Id: <9707221951.AA12264@zp>
To: dwm@aimnet.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Recently there was discussion between Dave Morris and me about whether
the request-host needed to be a FQHN, about changes to the definition
of domain-match, and about the treatment of the Domain= attribute in
Set-Cookie2.  The gist of the discussion was:  "Host names can be
specified in any form acceptable to the base HTTP protocol. That may be
an IP address, an incomplete host name string, or a FQHN string which
is the prefe[r]red form."  I've done some more thinking about it and have
the following observations.

1) (Sect 2) Relax requirement that request-host be a FQHN.

Okay.  request-host could be any name string.

2) (Sect 2) Change domain-match algorithm.

Okay.  A domain-matches B if the strings for A and B exactly match,
whether they are IP addresses, partial name strings, or FQHNs.

3) (Sect 4.3.2) Allow a Domain= value not to start with '.' and force a
'.' in front of any such value.

No.  Suppose your local network has a host "com".  This transaction ensues:

	C -> S
	GET /cgi-bin/foo HTTP/1.1
	Host: com
	[other stuff]

	S -> C
	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
	Set-Cookie: foo=bar; Domain=com
	Set-Cookie2: Version="1"

The proposed rule would have two undesirable effects, because the domain for
the cookie would become ".com":

	a) You could not return cookie "foo" to the server you got it from,
	because "com" does not domain-match ".com".

	b) Cookie "foo" would get sent to every server of the form "*.com".


The effect of doing 1 and 2 (and not 3) above would be:

1) You could use incomplete domain names (need not be FQHN) in Domain=.
2) The rule about the implicit value for Domain= would remain, namely that
a cookie sent in a Set-Cookie[2] that had no Domain= attribute could only
be returned to the server from which it came.

Question to Dave Morris:
Would those changes meet your needs?

Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 12:56:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:48 EDT