- From: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:44:10 +0300
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
On Tuesday 28 August 2007, Stefanos Harhalakis wrote: > 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?". Sorry for replying to self but I'd like to change that to 4: Discuss it in the list first. Then, maybe vote for '3'. After reading the minutes (again), I understand that this will only change RFC 2695 to 'become' the Netscape doc. So, I don't actually see it as a hi priority issue, thinking that a well accepted document already exists (Netscape) and there is no confusion. Also, shouldn't this become a new RFC that will replace 2695?
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 17:44:33 UTC