W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft (Warning: Rant Enclosed)

From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:59:12 -0800 (PST)
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <ML-3.1.858758352.3145.josh@birdcage>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2746
> PS The reason I let this rant get posted to the list is because I
> strongly believe that it accurately reflects the feelings of a
> significant number of people. If the IETF would continue being relevant
> it had better at least consider what those people are feeling and why.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to change what it has done
> w/the cookie spec but it does mean that there is a problem and it is in
> everybody's interest that it be addressed.
The WG *does* make every *reasonable* attempt to hear all sides.
That is what is meant when the phrase 'rough consensus' is used.
The wg meetings and mailing lists are well known.  Interested parties
are obligated to put forth their opinions.  The wg cannot seek out
every individual or organization who 'might' have an opinion.
The fact that up until right now, it seemed that the draft
might move forward with a consensus.

Why is it that right at the wire ( no pun intended ) this has
blown up again.  Its the same issues that have been discussed at 
length before, many times.

Obviously the rough in 'rough consensus' leads one to beleive that
not everyone will be happy with everything, thats not possible.
But the draft should move forward on consensus, not based on
who shouts the loudest.

In any event, time would be better spent writing a specific
alternative proposal for review, then a self proclaimed rant.
If so many people feel that way, they should write a draft
that expresses their views.

The chair has graciously invited you to create one for consideration.

> BTW, I would like to make it clear that I speak for myself, not
> Microsoft. The opinions I express are mine and mine alone. The postings
> I have been putting out are strictly a reflection of my deep concern
> about the damage I believe the cookie spec is doing to the IETF.

Ill avoid restating my disclamer, but it applies equally.
On 'what the cookie spec is doing to the IETF', I dont see it
as being quite so dramatic.  

The wg's charter is to generate and propose standards based on 
a consensus of opinion from a wide base of representation.
It has done so with many drafts.  

In this case, IMHO, a few (though quite big), organizations have
misinterpreted the spirit of the draft.  Now the wg is modifying
the draft to better express the spirit of that consensus.
I dont see that as damaging to the IETF.

I beleive that the spirit or intent of the wg consensus is more
important than the words on paper in a spec.

Josh Cohen				        Netscape Communications Corp.
Netscape Fire Department	                "My opinions, not Netscape's"
Server Engineering
josh@netscape.com                       http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 00:00:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC