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