Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?

From: "Remy Lebeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [http-state] Is this an omission in the parser rules of
draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-21?
From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, February 04, 2011 12:32 am
To: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Cc: Remy Lebeau <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

> We haven't done that for any of the other 
> "changes" since 2109.  IMHO, we'll lead 
> happier lives if we act as if 2109 never 
> existed.

Except that it did exist, was standardized, and some servers did
implement it (or at least parts of it). And I've seen some servers have
configuration options to enable/disable individual cookie specs
(including RFC 2965). Just because RFC 2109 was not commonly used does
not mean it was not used at all (Indy's own implementation supported the
Netscape and RFCs 2109 and 2965 specs almost fully until I recently
discovered the current draft work and am now switching to it), so it
should not be dismissed completely if interoperability is a key goal. At
the very least, allow the cookie-av grammer to recognize quoted-string
values.