Re: Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: (with COMMENT)

I didn't reply to all recipients in my previous email, resending with
(hopefully) everyone this time.

Including the original below for convenience:

Hello Orie,

Thank you for the review and my apologies for the late reply. I had to
take a hiatus.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1123#page-55
> Perhaps a better reference than "rfc1123-date"
> Would be: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6265#section-5.1.1 ?

Are you suggesting a change to the draft here?

> Is "2*4DIGIT [ non-digit *OCTET ]" the correct way to signal the decimal
numbers expected in cookies for year?

Yes, this is to allow for backwards compatibility with (hopefully)
older servers that still produce 2 digit years.

> But why is it not one of these:

> ```
> date = 1*2DIGIT month 1*4DIGIT
> date = 1*2DIGIT month 4DIGIT
> ```

I don't follow 1*4DIGIT, why would a 1 digit year be expected?

> ### BCP14 update

Done

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 9:37 PM Steven Bingler <bingler@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Orie,
>
> Thank you for the review and my apologies for the late reply. I had to take a hiatus.
>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1123#page-55
> > Perhaps a better reference than "rfc1123-date"
> > Would be: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6265#section-5.1.1 ?
>
> Are you suggesting a change to the draft here?
>
> > Is "2*4DIGIT [ non-digit *OCTET ]" the correct way to signal the decimal
> numbers expected in cookies for year?
>
> Yes, this is to allow for backwards compatibility with (hopefully) older servers that still produce 2 digit years.
>
> > But why is it not one of these:
>
> > ```
> > date = 1*2DIGIT month 1*4DIGIT
> > date = 1*2DIGIT month 4DIGIT
> > ```
>
> I don't follow 1*4DIGIT, why would a 1 digit year be expected?
>
> > ### BCP14 update
>
> Done
>
> - Steven

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2025 19:27:00 UTC