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

Re: making progress on cookies

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 17:30:51 EDT
Message-Id: <9710102130.AA24876@zp>
To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hardie@nic.nasa.gov
  > 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?

To quote one of the Appl. Area Directors:  "The point of serializing
these efforts is to focus the working group's discussion."  In other
words, you can nail down the wire protocol without getting side-tracked
by arguments about privacy stuff, and vice versa.  So you could do one
first, then the other, but neither would progress to RFC until both
sets of issues had been settled.

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 14:35:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:01 EDT