Subject: [http-state] IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-cookie-10 ?

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:59:17 -0700

Hi,

<chair>

Adam, during our meeting at IETF-78 Maastricht, committed to making some minor 
fixups to -httpstate-cookie-09, which he did that day, yielding 
-httpstate-cookie-10  (thanks!).

There've been no comments wrt -10 on the list since then. I've read it, and 
essentially don't have any comments.

In our Maastricht session, we agreed that the changes from -08 (WG last call 
draft) to -09 do not necessitate another WG Last Call. The changes from -09 to 
-10 are minimal.  The diff is available here..

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-10.txt

Are there any objections to progressing -httpstate-cookie-10 to IETF-wide last 
call?

Please speak up by this Friday 27-Aug if you have objections.

Of course there is still time to review the draft and get comments in, that is 
what Last Calls are for.

thanks,

=JeffH

</chair>

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:34:37 +0200

>Are there any objections to progressing -httpstate-cookie-10 to IETF-wide last 

It was my understanding that some of the comments on the -08 draft have
not yet been resolved; I recall Adam saying he wanted to conduct some
tests on some issues first; the -10 draft for instance still has a re-
quirement to treat the year "69" as 1969 even though the major implemen-
tations I've tested do not appear to do that (my test results are in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00833.html).
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:44:12 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00833.html).

According to <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00834.html>,
I seem to have asked you for a test case, which I don't have a record
of you ever providing:

[[
Do you have test cases that demonstrate these claims?  If so, I'd be
happy to add them to the test suite.
]]

In any case, the test suite isn't done yet and it's not a prerequisite
for finishing this document.

Adam

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:22:23 +0200

>I seem to have asked you for a test case, which I don't have a record

I did not. Knowing nothing about your test suite I could only have pro-
vided a Set-Cookie header with a date in 1969. You would spend more time
asking me to make one, wait for and then read through the response, then
verify the test case and incorporate it into your test suite, than just
making the test case yourself, so I didn't think you were being serious.

>for finishing this document.

The idea wasn't to add something to your test suite, but to change the
draft so it defines date processing in line with major implementations
(that being a goal of the specification) or note in the document why it
defines something that is unintuitive and contrary to running code, so
implementers may be persuaded to change their implementations.

I'm fine with asking the IETF as a whole to review the document even if
there are unresolved issues such as this, but then they should be noted
someplace so reviewers do not waste time reporting issues that are al-
ready known.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:39:21 -0400

> someplace so reviewers do not waste time reporting issues that are al-

Ditto my objections raised yesterday on this list.  Thank you.