W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:59:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTintXZkq87KJcsYvdNjpd34cg7GWCQ-JhVWv9xBo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:42:32AM -0700, =JeffH wrote:
>> FYI, we're getting very close to requesting RFC publication of
>> draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie. Please send any feedback to
>> <http-state@ietf.org>
>
> A few months ago, I reported one point to Adam which I think has since been
> missed. The draft does not indicate that it obsoletes the parts related to
> the Cookie header syntax of the RFC2965. But this RFC (re-)defined it,
> explicitly allowing empty lone attributes, as well as quoted strings in the
> value, both of which don't seem to be allowed anymore in latest draft, which
> makes the equal sign mandatory and expects a token as the value.
>
> So with 2965 not being obsoleted, both RFCs could be used to build possibly
> incompatible implementations.
>
> I don't know how this is normally dealt with. Is it possible to obsolete just
> one part of an RFC ? (the cookie2 part of 2965 looks fine).

This has been fixed, but the fix is not yet reflected in the published
draft.  The plan is to obsolete RFC 2965 and move it to historic(al).

Adam
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 21:00:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT