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

Re: Set-Cookie2: "additive" vs. "independent"

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:18:42 -0400
Message-Id: <33DE6C42.6201DD56@bell-labs.com>
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3996
Foteos Macrides wrote:

> [...]
>         The problem is that you're counting on $Version=0; being treated
> as a bad cookie by the old server or script, and don't know what error
> handling it's using.  It indeed would be desireable for the UA to
> communicate that it supports version 1 or greater cookie handling in
> those cases for which it is using cached version 0 cookies and doesn't
> yet know if the server or script can handle new cookies.  The simplest,
> most efficient way might be to send:
> Cookie2: $Version="1"
> Cookie: realoldnameA=realoldvalueA; realoldnameB=realoldvalueB[; ...]
> If it's an old server or script, the Cookie2 request header will be
> ignored.  Otherwise, the server or script will use Set-Cookie2, the
> UA will not send the Cookie2 probe, and use Cookie: $Version="1"; ...
> so the updating is mutually know by the State Management partners
> with negligable excess network traffic having been expended, and with
> both the server/script and UA thereafter enjoyed all the benefits
> of the modern State Management protocol.

I like this approach.

Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 1997 15:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC