W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1995

Re: Session-Id

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 13:37:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199507261137.NAA07947@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>
To: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
Mike Meyer:
>> I'm confused.  Do you mean to say you want session-id renegotiation by
>> the client for the case that two servers want to push the same
>> session-id value on the client?
>No - I'm just uncomfortable allowing the server to specify the session
>id, even if the client only uses it for that server.

I does feel uncomfortable to me too, but I don't think there are any
technical reasons that support this feeling.

> The renegotiation
>is trivial (just send the ID you generated), and a client doesn't need
>to implement it.

It is trivial to the client, not to the server.  The possibility of
renegotiation by clients would make it impossible for servers to
encode session state information in the session-id itself.

Server support for renegotiation would require a `session-id ->
meaning of session id' database in each server, the exact database
that server-supplied session-id promises to do away with if the amount
of state to be kept for each session is small.

> Do you think the renegotiation shouldn't be there at

Yes, I think renegotiation by clients on session-ids proposed by
servers is an unnecessary complication.  It should not be there.

In a server-supplied session-id scheme, renegotiation by servers, a
server saying 

  please change the session-id `pictures=y' I supplied earlier 
  to `pictures=n'

is a natural thing to have, and would make the life of some service
authors a bit easier.  If we are to implement a server-supplied
session-id scheme, it should allow such renegotiation by servers.

>        <mike

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 1995 07:38:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:57 UTC