Hi,

I am checking the RFC6265 as we wanted to switch to the RFC6265 Cookie 
processor. One thing I have noticed is around, the way cookie expires date is 
written to the response.

As per the RFC the date should follow RFC1123 date format 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-4.1.1


expires-av        = "Expires=" sane-cookie-date

 sane-cookie-date  = <rfc1123<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123>-date, 
defined in [RFC2616], Section 
3.3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.3.1>>

Example date format tomcat is writing

Thu, 11-Jul-2019 22:43:23 GMT     private static final String 
COOKIE_DATE_PATTERN = "EEE, dd-MMM-yyyy HH:mm:ss z"; (CookieProcessorBase.java)

What RFC says,


HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats

   for the representation of date/time stamps:



      Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT  ; RFC 
822<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822>, updated by RFC 
1123<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123>

      Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 
850<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc850>, obsoleted by RFC 
1036<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036>

      Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994       ; ANSI C's asctime() format


        HTTP-date    = rfc1123<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123>-date | 
rfc850<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc850>-date | asctime-date

       rfc1123<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123>-date = wkday "," SP date1 
SP time SP "GMT"

       rfc850<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc850>-date  = weekday "," SP date2 
SP time SP "GMT"

       asctime-date = wkday SP date3 SP time SP 4DIGIT

        date1        = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT

                      ; day month year (e.g., 02 Jun 1982)

       date2        = 2DIGIT "-" month "-" 2DIGIT

                      ; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82)

Tomcat date is getting started with short wkday then following date2 (contains 
dashes) format instead of date1.  I see both the cookie processors of tomcat 
are following the same pattern. Can tomcat keep the behavior according to RFC 
in future updates ?

Thanks,
Pavan.


Reply via email to