shibboleth-dev - Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)

From: Thomas Lenggenhager <>
To: "Scott Cantor" <>
Cc:
Subject: Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:40:47 +0200

On Thursday, 21 Apr 2005, "Scott Cantor" writes:
> I think we need to initially:
>
> - standardize the cookie name and syntax (and I suggest we adopt the 2.0 CDC
> for that) to enable somebody to write a plugin that could manage all
> discovery cookies in a client easily

What is 2.0 CDC? Could you please post a link to it?
If there is a standard coming up, we would surely like to adopt it.

Thomas

Re: WAYF cookie considered dubious, Olivier Salaün - CRU, 04/18/2005
- RE: WAYF cookie considered dubious, Scott Cantor, 04/18/2005
  - Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Olivier Salaün - CRU, 04/19/2005
    - RE: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Scott Cantor, 04/19/2005
      - Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Sassa, 04/20/2005
        
        Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Olivier Salaün - CRU, 04/20/2005
        
        Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Sassa, 04/20/2005
        
        RE: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Scott Cantor, 04/20/2005
        Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Thomas Lenggenhager, 04/21/2005
        RE: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Scott Cantor, 04/21/2005
        Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Thomas Lenggenhager, 04/21/2005
        Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Tom Scavo, 04/21/2005
        RE: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Scott Cantor, 04/21/2005
        
        RE: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious), Scott Cantor, 04/20/2005

List archive

Re: WAYF talks (was WAYF cookie considered dubious)