This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 27869 - WebSocket: "headers to send appropriate cookies" is not defined in RFC 6455
Summary: WebSocket: "headers to send appropriate cookies" is not defined in RFC 6455
Status: RESOLVED MOVED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-01-21 03:48 UTC by Takeshi Yoshino
Modified: 2016-03-10 08:45 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Takeshi Yoshino 2015-01-21 03:48:58 UTC
This term is no longer defined in the WebSocket Protocol spec of IETF.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/infrastructure.html#concept-websocket-cookie-headers

This change was made on https://html5.org/r/6189 2011-06-06 22:20. At that time the IETF I-D had the term defined.

We had it until version 10.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10

> 12.  The request MAY include headers associated with sending cookies,
>         as defined by the appropriate specifications [RFC6265].  These
>         headers are referred to as _Headers to Send Appropriate
>         Cookies_.

The text was rewritten to lose the term definition on update to version 11. RFC 6455 also doesn't have it.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2015-01-22 17:04:37 UTC
So what should it be replaced with?
Comment 2 Takeshi Yoshino 2015-01-23 04:30:20 UTC
There's no good hooking point. Maybe the step 12 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-4.1 is sufficient? Or  say like "in the step 12 of the requirements for the opening handshake, ..."
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2015-01-24 23:21:27 UTC
Could we just have the IETF spec fixed instead?
Comment 4 Anne 2015-09-05 17:32:02 UTC
Emailed the IETF to ask: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/FMPPLK-5UEUXtwaUg6DVHC-YNUY
Comment 5 Julian Reschke 2015-09-05 18:11:31 UTC
The IETF spec doesn't define a term that apparently wasn't needed in that spec. Big deal.

It seems the obvious thing to do is to define it in the API spec then.
Comment 6 Anne 2016-03-10 08:45:52 UTC
https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/840