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

Re: making progress on cookies

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971010154322.7630B-100000@ns.viet.net>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4546
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, David W. Morris wrote:

> I'm not sure I see the point of splitting the document if the wire
> protocol document can't progress w/o the privacy portion. Furthermore,
> I believe portions of the wire protocol are meaningless w/o the privacy
> portion.

Perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but I don't see the
sections that you mean. The strict 'how do you keep state' requirement
seems to split on the adminstrative level from the 'who is entitled to
receive that state' at the next metalevel up. It is possible for some
kinds of proposals that have not been placed on the table at this time
(things like cryptographically certified lists of specific machines
entitled to recieve the state) could mix the two levels, but right now
they are still seem quite seperable administratively. 

Could you give an example of something in the current proposal that mixes
the two levels? Or are you suggesting that the split will block the
exploration of options such as the one I mentioned?

Benjamin Franz
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 15:55:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:28 UTC