Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by yalogin on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @04:56PM
(#6015429)
What is the alternative to cookies? What does he mean by session/identity facility?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by _delirium on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:02PM
(#6015473)
There's some discussion in this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JulSep/...
in short,
the need for a Session header to replace the use of Cookies
for basic session management
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by cldr on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:22PM
(#6015611)
So is that just cookies by another name?
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by Qantourisc on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @05:43PM
(#6015757)
Cookies with an expire of session and secure flag set: yes.
But this should be more secure, and stored for 1 session implicitly.
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by jimktrains2 on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @06:10PM
(#6015949)
And in theory less data, right? a session ID doesn't need to store the kilobytes that cookies do.
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by yalogin on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @06:43PM
(#6016195)
Why can't there be multiple sessions for different functionalities? I am not sure people are going to relinquish the cookie concept. All the sessions are doing is have the "cookies" transported as part of the HTTP message and not as a separate file (payload)
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by jimktrains2 on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @09:11PM
(#6016804)
I'm not sure I understand you.
I'm talking about a Session-ID header that'd have a 128bit (say) max length or something. Not something that has a few kb limit like a cookie.
Also, a GET request wouldn't send a payload so I'm not sure what you mean.
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by jessaustin on Friday July 12, 2013 @10:08AM
(#6032622)
Cookies are sent in the Cookie and Set-Cookie headers. No separate files.