- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:44:54 -0500
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
David W. Morris wrote: > > I fail to understand the rationale behind what to me is the most complex > section in the whole document. Why are we requiring UAs to combine > the two headers? > > I think there is no siginificant loss of functionality if this whole > section is dropped along with the forward reference in the previous > section. Simply require the server to send both with appropriate > attributes. If the UA understands both forms, it MUST send the new form > and it must replace an existing matching form 1 with the new form. > > Otherwise the UA doesn't understand both and sends the old form. This issue has been discussed (but perhaps privately?) The complaint from some parties was that the NAME=VALUE part of cookies, in particular, can be (and already is) quite large. So sending it twice, once in Set-Cookie and once in Set-Cookie2 would incur a lot of network traffic. I agree that sending a completely separate Set-Cookie2 header with its own set of values would be much simpler. But the network traffic that results was deemed excessive. Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 06:49:42 UTC