W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Introducing a Session header...

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:44:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbezOi3NdmdMtdybjC182ghCN+9WkL3+49vpyrbVpAAjgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> James et al,
>
> Just a reminder: We're not here to re-define the semantics of HTTP; our
> current charter is about how it goes across the wire. We can talk about
> HTTP semantics on this list (and often do), but let's not get confused
> about the scope of the current discussion.
>
>
Hmm.. I'm not sure I see how discussion about the potential use of optional
headers qualifies as "re-defining the semantics of HTTP".


> I know that it's tempting to say "we're doing HTTP/2, let's throw this
> in...", but if we start doing that, we're never going to finish. Let's stay
> focused. Replacing Cookies is NOT a small task.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 18/07/2012, at 9:56 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> > On 17 July 2012 16:49, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This moved off list unintentionally...
> >
> > Ahh, oops.  I thought it was intentional.
> >
> >> assuming we can successful move people away from using sessions as a
> whole
> >
> > Who are you trying to kid?  Cookies are here to stay.  It's just that
> > anyone with any sense will avoid them.
> >
> >> (While we're at it, can we also eliminate routing based on the
> request-uri?)
> >
> > Why would you ever want to do that?  That's an important feature.  At
> > least it is stateless.
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 00:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 July 2012 00:45:10 GMT