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

Re: Section 10.1.1 Combining Set-Cookie and Set-Cookie2

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:18:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970326131419.2898D-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2917

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Dave Kristol wrote:

> Foteos Macrides wrote:
> >         Another possibility if for Version 1 capable UAs to indicate
> > this in a request header, perhaps only when not sending a Cookie header
> > with Version 1 attributes, which itself indicates this capability.
> The down-sides of that approach are:
> 1) A UA would always send extra header information to indicate cookie
> capabilities, even to servers that don't use cookies.
> 2) An application would have to look for such a header *or* for V1 cookies to
> decide what kind of cookies to send.

I don't see why it couldn't be:

    Cookie: $version=1

So there would only be 1 header to examine. But I don't think this is
necessary. As I said before, I think this is needless complexity for a
transition plan to save an arguably large/small amount of network traffic.

The server (read application author) burden in terms of the potential for
some client not correctly merging the two headers is quite high.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 1997 13:21:11 UTC

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