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

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

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:16:52 +0200
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Cc: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101021211652.GI6572@1wt.eu>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:59:18PM -0700, Adam Barth wrote:
> 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).

OK, thank you Adam for the quick response.

Cheers,
Willy
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 21:17:28 GMT

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