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 20:44:10 +0300
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <200708282044.10419.v13@priest.com>

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 GMT

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