Re: The state of cookies

I tried to say this in a less provocative way, but I
was having difficulty. So bear with me:

# The thing that is broken is the state-mgmt downwards compatibility
# scheme.

Can someone please write a short, self-contained
description of what in RFC 2109 is technically "broken"?
Why it is that vendors can't just implement the "proposed 
standard" as a hotfix or patch or in their next release?

Section 10 shows that RFC 2109 attempts to be compatible
with Netscape's implementation. No other backward compatibility
issues were claimed.

> The state-mgmt spec writers did not actually test the
> compatibility scheme with MSIE at the right time.  This is hardly
> Yaron's fault.

If "compatibility with MSIE" is a technical factor
that we want to consider, then we should have considered it
at the time of last call.

It is the responsibility of the HTTP working group to read
and review drafts, test the algorithms they propose, etc.,
when they go through "last call". If you
need more time, speak up. We have several other items that
will go through "last call" soon.

If you want to assign fault, I'll accept the blame for not
enforcing the "silence does not mean consent" rule.

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter