Re: fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt


On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:42:32AM -0700, =JeffH wrote:
> FYI, we're getting very close to requesting RFC publication of 
> draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie. Please send any feedback to 
> <>

A few months ago, I reported one point to Adam which I think has since been
missed. The draft does not indicate that it obsoletes the parts related to
the Cookie header syntax of the RFC2965. But this RFC (re-)defined it,
explicitly allowing empty lone attributes, as well as quoted strings in the
value, both of which don't seem to be allowed anymore in latest draft, which
makes the equal sign mandatory and expects a token as the value.

So with 2965 not being obsoleted, both RFCs could be used to build possibly
incompatible implementations.

I don't know how this is normally dealt with. Is it possible to obsolete just
one part of an RFC ? (the cookie2 part of 2965 looks fine).


Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 20:53:10 UTC