- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:56 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: William Chan (???) <willchan@chromium.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Howard Dierking <howard@microsoft.com>
In message <9A91F932-2F1C-4931-AD0E-8A2A4CE0A2A4@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: >> Even if used right (one cryptosigned session-identifier, all actual >> data stored serverside) it has the sideeffect of blanket disabling >> caching. >> >> HTTP/2.0 should do better. > >I have a hard time seeing how that's in the current scope of discussion. > >Part of the reason that this sort of thing is out of scope is that it's >a big rat hole, and the more we take on redesigning, the less likely >we'll be able to ship something and have it deployed. Rule #1 in design: Always make it easier for people to do the right thing. HTTP/2.0 should provide a session-concept which makes it easier to do the right thing. If we do that right, cookies will die in their own time. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:37:21 UTC