- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:03:58 +0100
- 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 UTC