W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Status of draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLPNzx=WVWSkVQPV7pYZu2wHU88p9mu6gguu7QW5wXKGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTPbis Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I posted the following message to apps-discuss@ietf.org
If you respond to it, please do NOT respond here, on the HTTP mailing list.
Respond either directly to me or to the apps-discuss list *only*.  Thanks.

The IESG discussed draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-07 on this week's
teleconference (Thursday).  The IESG evaluation record can be found
here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded/ballot/

Stephen Farrell holds the main objections, but several other ADs agree
with him or with variants of his position.  The main two points are
(1) This is NOT a good thing to standardize, and we shouldn't.
(2) This causes a serious privacy exposure, so *if* we do standardize
it, we have to address that.

After the telechat, Stephen switched his ballot from DISCUSS to
ABSTAIN.  There are two other ABSTAIN positions.  There also remain
three DISCUSS positions.  The document cannot progress unless all
three of those DISCUSS positions are cleared *and* at least one of
them moves to NO OBJECTION (well, *and* that assumes that both ADs who
are on vacation come back and ballot NO OBJECTION as well).

In short, this document is in serious trouble.

To continue discussion, the IESG intends to have a teleconference with
the document authors, and perhaps with other proponents.  If anyone
would like to actively participate in that discussion, please contact
me off list, and we'll see if we can add you -- we do need to keep it
small.  Then we'll see if we have a way forward.

Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 05:50:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:06 UTC