Subject: Re: [http-state] comments on http-state charter

From: "Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:54:14 +0100

Sorry about the delay.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:50:55 +0200, Adam Barth <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Yngve N. Pettersen<[email-masked]>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:50:01 +0200, Bil Corry <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> The working group will create a new RFC that obsoletes RFC 2965 and
>>> specifies Cookies as they are actually used in existing
>>> implementations and deployments.
>>
>> I am not sure about this point, *unless* the intention is to include the
>> entire RFC 2965 specification (including headers and header syntax) in  
>> the
>> new specification. If that is the intention, I think it should be  
>> spelled
>> out, since RFC 2965 defines a different syntax.
>
> I don't think our intention is to support all the features of 2965 in
> our first document, just as we're not going to support all the
> features of 2109.  Is creating a feature superset required for
> obsoleting an RFC?

I think we might need input from an AD on that, but IMO the proposed  
document will at most obsolete 2109 (again), but is updating a  
specification that is in many areas different from RFC 2965 (particualrly  
the Set-Cookie2 header syntax), and which is following a parallel track.

One way to think about it is that if Netscape cookies are v0.1 (just to  
keep with the 2965 version numbering), 2965 cookies are v1.0, then the  
proposed document might be considered v0.5, on a different branch/fork of  
the cookie specification.

> That would seem to preclude ever removing features
> that were not adopted by the marketplace.

Again, I think an AD will provide better information, but my impression is  
that that happens as part of moving a specification from Proposed Standard  
to Draft Standard and then to Full Standard, based on a minimum of  
interoperable implementations.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer		     Email: [email-masked]
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
********************************************************************

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:57 -0700

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> document will at most obsolete 2109 (again), but is updating a specification
> that is in many areas different from RFC 2965 (particualrly the Set-Cookie2
> header syntax), and which is following a parallel track.

Fair enough.

> One way to think about it is that if Netscape cookies are v0.1 (just to keep
> with the 2965 version numbering), 2965 cookies are v1.0, then the proposed
> document might be considered v0.5, on a different branch/fork of the cookie
> specification.

That's an interesting way of thinking about the issue.  From my
perspective, it's most important to obsolete the RFCs that using
conflicting syntax (e.g., requiring $Version=1 in the Set-Cookie
header).  Specifications that use new HTTP headers (e.g., Set-Cookie2)
don't seem to be in direct conflict.

Adam

---

From: "Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:16:39 +0100

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:57:57 +0100, Adam Barth <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> keep

Think of the specifications as versions of a product, e.g. a browser, where
the vendor occasionally updates older versions that does not completely
overrule newer release with a higher version number.

> header).

Which only 2109 does, so that is the one that should be obsoleted.

2965 do update the syntax if the Cookie header, for 2965 compliant client
when sending cookies to servers or domains that have sent 2965 style
cookies. IMO that is a conditional expansion of the syntax, and should not
be obsoleted in any way, particularly since I think we will need it if we
are to better solve the issues inherent in the Cookie Monster Bug.

> Specifications that use new HTTP headers (e.g., Set-Cookie2)

Which IMO means that 2965 should be left alone during this round.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:52:48 -0700

Yes.  If it wasn't clear from my earlier message, I was agreeing with
you for precisely the reasons you state below.  :)

Adam

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera