Sounds like an even better idea. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Kristol [SMTP:dmk@bell-labs.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 1997 12:49 PM > To: Yaron Goland; 'hedlund@best.com' > Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com > Subject: RE: new cookie draft > > At 1:39 AM -0800 3/22/97, Yaron Goland wrote: > >Cool. David, what do you think? We define PORT. If it is included > then > >the cookie may only be returned on the port it is received. If it is > not > >included then the cookie may be returned on any port within the > domain. > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > At the risk of complexifying things, should Port perhaps take a > comma-separated list of ports to which the cookie can be sent, rather > than > just to the port from which it came? That would provide a middle > ground > between one port and all. > > Dave Kristol >Received on Saturday, 22 March 1997 16:47:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC