- From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:13:53 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Ah, sorry, had misintepreted the phrase session (I was thinking somewhat of the way Java servlets manage a user session). On that note though, probably worth thinking about an alternative header name... "Connection-Session" perhaps? Although I'm not sure that's much clearer, any other suggestions? On 20/07/2012 13:51, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <500952FE.1020402@jrn.me.uk>, Ross Nicoll writes: >> On 20/07/2012 13:35, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> Ohh, that's the disconnect: It should _never_ share the session-id >>> with any other site, that's sort of the entire point. >> We rather do want sites to share session IDs, actually, so we can do >> easy single-sign-on. > I'm all for single-sign-on, but they need to use a different nonce > than the session-id I'm talking about. > > The session-id I'm talking about, are mainly for letting HTTP routers > chose the same server for the entire sessions, without having to > dig through cookies. > >
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 15:14:19 UTC