Re: State Management pre-draft - combinational requirement


On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> 	I would like to raise more public discussion about the combinational
> requirement in the latest State Management pre-draft.

Yes, me too!

> either to RFC 2108 or the current pre-draft.  When I tried today, after the
> multiple redirections and replacements abated, I ended up with the cookies
> of identical name and value:
> 	       ||||||||
> 	MC1=GUID=5e1a543305d611d188a708002bb74f65
> 	       ||||||||||||||
> 	MC1=GUID=5e1a543305d611d188a708002bb74f65
> I don't know if those should be considered "long" cookie name/value pairs,

I certainly don't consider those cookies LONG.

> the modern State Management design,  This is essentially a "probing" 
> situation, and as soon as either the UA or server detects that modern
> cookie support is implemented in its State Management partner, only
> Set-Cookie2 headers will be sent to the UA by the server's replies, and
> the modern Cookie header format will be used in the UAs requests to the
> server.  The sending of both Set-Cookie2 and Set-Cookie header thus
> will become limited to just "first contacts", which are not likely to

Exactly my point in my lengthly earlier post.

The combinatorial rules are complex and will be prone to failure. They
should be eliminated.

Dave Morris

Received on Saturday, 26 July 1997 22:11:37 UTC