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

Fbk on state-man-mec-04.txt

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:37:53 -0800 (PST)
To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971123220914.13923B-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>

As I reviewed the new draft, I noted a few editorial comments which
follow:

1.  In several places ``X'' is used, sometimes in the same paragraph
    with "X". It seemed strange to use two different forms of double
    quoting. I think it would be better to stick with one form.

2.  In the first paragraph of section "3. STATE AND SESSIONS", the
    phrase "the technique" implies a reference to a technique which
    hasn't been defined.  And in fact, the phrase could refer to
    either the new proposal OR the 'existing' methodology.

    I was also uncomfortable with the word "currently" since Netscape
    cookies have been in use now for a long time and most readers would
    consider the current time frame to include Netscape cookies.

    Perhaps replace "Currently, HTTP servers" with "HTTP servers 
    conforming to RFC 2068"

3.  I believe "4. Outline" and the introductory phrase "We outline" was
    already noted by Roy and acknowledged. 

4.  In the same section 4 introductory paragraph, I agree with the
    suggestion already made that most of the paragraph could just be
    deleted (keep 1st two sentences). The reference to CGI programs
    should be deleted in any case.

5.  In 4.2.1 I think it would be better to drop the first parenthetic
    note which attempts to differentiate persistent connections from
    the term session.  At least drop the first sentence and change
    "should have no effect" to "has no effect".

6.  In 4.2.2, in the description of NAME=VALUE, it is redundant to
    say "$ are reserved" and "for other users".  Drop the second part.

7.  In 4.3.3, the phrase "then gets discarded" isn't needed.  The
    cookie persists until X happens is sufficient.

8.  I don't see the need for the restriction stated in the last sentence
    of section 4.5:
      Proxies must not introduce Set-Cookie2 (Cookie) headers of their
      own in proxy responses (requests). 
    I'd rather have this dropped completely but if not, then change must 
    to should.

Dave Morris
Received on Sunday, 23 November 1997 22:40:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:04 EDT