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

Re: making progress on cookies

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:22:56 -0700
Message-Id: <9710101422.ZM17347@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4541
If the IESG will not move them forward except in tandem,
I don't really see the point in splitting the draft.  Has
the IESG indicated that they would prefer this approach
because they might later be revved independantly?  Or
is there pressure to do this so that implementations could
claim compliance with the wire protocol without
claiming compliance with the privacy sections?
				Ted Hardie

On Oct 10,  4:44pm, Dave Kristol wrote:
> Subject: making progress on cookies
> Things have been very quiet on the cookie front.  I have been busy with
> other projects, but I am now able to return to the fray.
> At issue is how to make progress on a successor to RFC 2109.  One
> proposal is to split draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-03 into two pieces:
> 1) a description of the wire protocol; and
> 2) a description of the privacy considerations of cookies.
> The second document would comprise approximately these sections of
> state-man-mec-03:
> 	- 4.3.5 Sending Cookies in Unverifiable Transactions
> 	- 7 Privacy
> The groundrules would be that each of the two documents could/should be
> discussed separately, but that the IESG would not allow either to
> become an RFC until agreement had been reached on both.
> I'm soliciting discussion of this approach before I invest the time
> to split the document in two.  What do you think of this approach?
> Dave Kristol
>-- End of excerpt from Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 14:26:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC