Re: unverifiable transactions (was: Unidentified subject!)
Dave Kristol (dmk@bell-labs.com)
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:40:32 -0500
Jaye, Dan wrote:
> [...]
> A user agent may verify that the request-URI comes from a trusted |
> domain by placing a request to a certificate authority to get the |
> credentials of the domain. Those credentials may be persistently |
> cached by the user agent to reduce overhead of repetitive verification
> |
> The user agent may have the default behavior of sending and accepting |
> cookies from the request-URI domain if the credentials indicate that
> the |
> domain is trusted and the credentials have not expired. The user should
> |
> have the ability to explicitly override the user agent verification for
> a |
> specific domain. |
>
Sorry, I'm not willing to entertain the idea of credentials and trusted parties
for this version of the spec. Maybe it's reasonable for the future, but lacking a
complete description of the credentials infrastructure, your proposal isn't
practical now.
> ...
>
> 7.1 User Agent Control
>
> ...
>
> A user agent usually begins execution with no remembered state
> information. It should be possible to configure a user agent never to
> send Cookie headers, in which case it can never sustain state with an
> origin server. (The user agent would then behave like one that is
> unaware of how to handle Set-Cookie2 response headers.)
>
> The user agent should allow the user to specify whether state
> information
> should be retained each time the user agent terminates; the default |
> should be "yes." If the user chooses to retain state information, |
> it would be restored the next time the user agent runs. |
>
> NOTE: User agents should probably be cautious about using files to store
> cookies long-term. If a user runs more than one instance of the user
> agent, the cookies could be commingled or otherwise corrupted.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------
>
> My objective here is to provide a more explicit definition of how a
> certificate authority would "verify" an otherwise unverifiable
> transaction.
Perhaps, but you've only made reference to a now-non-existent facility.
>
> In addition, there has been no discussion in this forum on the item in
> 7.1 that effectively eliminates persistent cookies. I believe that the
> current wording could allow a browser to provide an "invisible default"
> where a user could have a default that cookies are not persistent and
> the user would never know. My recommendation is that we make it
> explicit that the user be prompted and the default should be positive.
> Once again, this provides consistency with the current implementations
> in terms of default behavior yet provides the user with control.
I disagree that 7.1 eliminates persistent cookies. The current wording is:
====
When the user agent terminates execution, it should let the user discard
all state information. Alternatively, the user agent may ask the user
whether state information should be retained; the default should be
``no.'' If the user chooses to retain state information, it would be
restored the next time the user agent runs.
====
Note the wording: "should *let*". And "may ask". The spec says the UA should
give the user the choice of what to do. The default in the *dialog* should be
``no'' (i.e., did not retain). I see no invisible control. (:-)
Dave Kristol