W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:20:42 +0200
Message-ID: <46BF092A.6080705@gmx.de>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I would 
> like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC 2965 (HTTP 
> State Management Mechanism) should be in scope for the proposed WG.
> 
> Question: Should RFC 2965 revision be in scope for the WG?
> 
> Please chose one of the following answers:
> 
> 1). No
> 2). Yes
> 3). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently 
> proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG")
> 4). I have another opinion, which is ....
> 
> Please send answers to the mailing list, or directly to me *and* Mark 
> Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>.
> And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of 
> answers.

3. As long as it doesn't take away cycles from delivering RFC2616bis.


Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 13:20:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT