RE: new cookie draft

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