W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

HTTP-state WG being resurrected?

From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:35:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4A72BAEF.6090500@KingsMountain.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
fyi/fwiw, http-state@ietf.org appears to be climbing up outta the dark...

------- Forwarded Message

Subject: [http-state] http-state charter
From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:53:06 -0500 (15:53 PDT)
To: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>

Much delayed, but I'm now working on creating our charter.  I've included a 
first draft below; it borrows heavily from the httpbis charter.  Feedback 
welcomed.  For a sense of what other WG charters look like, they are here:

	http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter.html


- Bil


----

Charter: HTTP State Management Mechanism (http-state) WG

Last Modified: 2008-07-29

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: http-state@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

The HTTP State Management Mechanism (Cookies) was original created
by Netscape Communications in their Netscape cookie specification,
from which a formal specification followed (RFC 2109, RFC 2965).
Due to years of implementation and extension, several ambiguities
have become evident, impairing interoperability and the ability to
easily implement and use HTTP State Management Mechanism.

The working group will refine RFC2965 to:
* Incorporate errata and updates
* Clarify conformance requirements
* Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
* Clarify existing methods of extensibility
* Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented
and also unduly affect interoperability
* Where necessary, add implementation advice
* Document the security properties of HTTP State Management
Mechanism and its associated echanisms for common applications

In doing so, it should consider:
* Implementer experience
* Demonstrated use of HTTP State Management Mechanism
* Impact on existing implementations and deployments

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document that is suitable to supersede RFC 2965
* A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP
State Management Mechanism


Goals and Milestones:
TBD


No Current Internet-Drafts
No Request For Comments

_______________________________________________
http-state mailing list
http-state@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state

------- End of Forwarded Message
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 09:36:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT