W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: making progress on cookies

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:05:20 -0700
Message-Id: <9710101505.ZM17450@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4543
On Oct 10,  5:30pm, Dave Kristol wrote:

> To quote one of the Appl. Area Directors:  "The point of serializing
> these efforts is to focus the working group's discussion."  In other
> words, you can nail down the wire protocol without getting side-tracked
> by arguments about privacy stuff, and vice versa.  So you could do one
> first, then the other, but neither would progress to RFC until both
> sets of issues had been settled.
> Dave Kristol

That can work, if there is an iron gavel willing to declare things
out of order and make it stick.  The cookie discussions have consistently
been retarded in their progress by folks entering them and re-raising
topics which have been discussed.  In an open process, it is hard to
tell people that their voice would have been heard had they started
participating earlier.  Especially where issues of privacy are concerned,
that can seem like disguised censorship.

I believe we need to make progress on cookies, and if the ADs want to
split the document to focus the discussion, that's fine by me.  If
it doesn't work we are in no worse shape than we are in now.
				Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 15:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:28 UTC