Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:08:23 +0100
From: "Dirk.vanGulik" <Dirk.vanGulik@jrc.it>
Message-Id: <9703041108.AA01621@ jrc.it>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Cookie draft for inspection (fwd)
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> From new-httpd-owner@apache.org Tue Mar  4 04:47:09 1997
> Delivered-To: new-httpd@qmail.hyperreal.com
> Mbox-Line: From new-httpd-owner@apache.org  Mon Mar  3 18:46:11 1997
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:45:53 -0800 (PST)
> From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
> To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> Subject: Re: Cookie draft for inspection (fwd)
> 
> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I know you don't have a lot of spare time in your life, but you might want to
> > check out the most recent cookie draft.  I've got a bad feeling about it,
> > mostly because they've decided to punt on existing implementations and go for a
> > "Set-Cookie2" idea.  I don't know why, and don't have time to sift through why,
> > but I fear the worst.  
> 
> The main reason is that the RFC 2109 spec was designed to be
> cross-compatible with Netscape's cookie spec, and it in fact works
> that way with Navigator. However, it was discovered that IE's cookie
> implementation did not function with the RFC 2109 cookies (although it
> adhered to Netscape's spec). Some people expressed that perhaps a new
> header should be created, to avoid all these problems.
> 
> This is still being discussed actively on http-wg, so I'd advise
> anyone interested to go there. I personally have no interest in this,
> but that's what I glean from reading the mail there in the last few
> weeks.

I've been trying to keep up with it in implementation land; and thoughd
I was on top; until I tried the Unix version Communicator :-( Anyway it
looks like something very minor (see attached diff).

Dw.