W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: new cookie draft

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:34:26 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, "'hedlund@best.com'" <hedlund@best.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970323112155.15173C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2840

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Dave Kristol wrote:

> 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.

That was more or less my proposal. (I tried to describe a tri-state
solution)  Given that ports are and issue, this seems like a reasonable

Dave Morris
Received on Sunday, 23 March 1997 11:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC