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

RE: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) " to Propo sed Standard

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:27:43 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48503187B2E@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Declare it historic and forget about it. As for the new draft, no one
seems interested in implementing it so why put an RFC on proposed track
when it will never make it to draft status?

	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 10, 1997 9:25 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) "
> to Proposed Standard
> 
> You have raised some (apparently new) objections to
> moving "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1)" to
> Proposed Standard.
> 
> On the other hand, the working group has previously
> issued RFC 2109, a Proposed Standard, which has serious
> interoperability problems with currently deployed
> software. (I assume you're familiar with this software).
> 
> So what do you recommend that we do? It seems intolerable
> to have a Proposed Standard that we wouldn't actually
> want to propose that people implement, and we should
> move on this.
> 
> Withdraw 2109 (mark it Historical?) Document current
> practice for cookies?
> 
> (If we proceed with this document, we should deal
> with Yaron's comments on 4.2.2.)
> 
> Larry
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 18:39:50 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:46 EDT