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: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:04:49 +0300
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <200708282004.49749.v13@priest.com>

On Monday 27 August 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.
>
> If you haven't replied to this question, please send your replies by
> September 3rd.

I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but I'd suggest 1 (No). The rationale 
can be summarized in the question: "Why yes?". 
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 17:05:11 GMT

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