Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cookie value aliasing #2082

Closed
mnot opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #2147
Closed

Cookie value aliasing #2082

mnot opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #2147
Labels

Comments

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Apr 29, 2022

Should we recognise e.g., binary content in cookie values? If so, how?

@mnot mnot added the retrofit label Apr 29, 2022
@sbingler
Copy link
Collaborator

Do you mind expanding on what you mean?

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Apr 29, 2022

This is for the retrofit spec's cookie mapping](https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit.html#name-cookies). Since many cookie's payloads are base64, it seems like it'd be beneficial to figure out a way to carry them as binary.

I've been meaning to start a discussion with the cookie authors about this section of the spec generally to a) make sure it's a good idea and b) it's correct / doesn't cause problems. PTAL if you have time.

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented May 12, 2022

Maybe the right thing to do here is to introduce a new parameter that indicates the type of the value.

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Jun 8, 2022

... except parameters aren't available on Cookie; just Set-Cookie. hmm.

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Jun 8, 2022

Perhaps the most we can do is to say that the SF-cookie headers can have a value in any type, but they get mapped to the string value in "normal" headers. That way you can automatically convert SF-cookie to cookie, but not the other way around.

The only alternative I see is to carry the type information in a separate header, which is not great.

mnot added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 8, 2022
@mnot mnot mentioned this issue Jun 8, 2022
@mnot mnot closed this as completed in #2147 Jun 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants