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: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:45:04 +0100
Message-ID: <46C02820.3000309@isode.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>
>
> --On 11. august 2007 17:35 +0100 Alexey Melnikov 
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> 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 ....
>
> My response:
>
> Yes - updating of 2965 to document how the mechanism works, and 
> possibly describing issues due to non-conformant uses and inherent 
> limitations in the mechanism, SHOULD be in scope for the WG.
>
> No - creating a new cookie mechanism to supplant the one specified in 
> 2965 SHOULD NOT be in scope for the WG.
>
> That doesn't fit any of alternatives 1-3, so I'm a 4....

Good point. I've implicitly assumed that new mechanisms of any sort are 
out of scope for the WG. Otherwise the proposed WG would have HTTPEXT 
acronym ;-)
With this clarification, I think your answer is 2).
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 09:46:16 GMT

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