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: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:03:58 +0100
Message-ID: <46DEFD9E.8030006@isode.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.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.

I've reviewed replies with Mark and here are the results:

No - 2 people
Yes - 2 people (or 4 people, as 2 replied "Yes/Maybe")
Maybe - 7 people (or 5 people if you exclude the 2 who said yes/maybe)

So consensus seems to be in favor of "Maybe" with very slight bias 
toward Yes.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 19:03:19 GMT

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