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: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:33:36 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850332A6C0@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Matthew Rubenstein' <ruby@name.net>
Cc: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
So write up a "current practices" RFC and use it obsolete RFC 2109.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Matthew Rubenstein [SMTP:ruby@name.net]
> Sent:	Friday, July 11, 1997 6:18 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'Larry Masinter'; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	RE: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) "
> to Proposed Standard
> 
> At 06:27 PM 7/10/97 -0700, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >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?
> 
> 	We need a consistent spec for interoperable Cookies. The UAs and
> servers
> implement them, and many applications rely on them. OPS is (will be)
> good
> for profiles, but the majority of our state info is application
> infrastructure, equally applicable to anonymous and ID'd users. Don't
> throw
> the interop baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> 
> >	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
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Matthew Rubenstein                    North American Media Engines
> Toronto, Ontario   *finger matt for public key*      (416)943-1010
> 
> 			    Chess is for computers.
Received on Friday, 11 July 1997 12:38:16 EDT

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