state management status

I am (also) confused by the appearance of 

in the face of:

most likely because of the confusion around which of these might be
the 'official' work of the committee.

In the strategy we've set out, 

>   Any proposed HTTP/1.1 features not in HTTP/1.0 for which there is no
>   consensus will revert to HTTP/1.0 status in 1.1 and be considered
>   for inclusion in HTTP/1.2.

The appearance of two drafts which seem to deal with the same topic,
and the apparent lack of agreement between the proponents of these two
approaches lead me to believe that there is no current consensus on
the issue of state management; I'm not familiar enough with the status
of 'running code' to make a call on the issue of 'rough consensus and
running code'.

I also don't know whether it is reasonable for both specifications and
methods to exist; some of the wording of session-id leads me to
believe that it might be.

I would like the respective authors Dave Kristol, Lou Montulli,
Phillip Hallam-Baker, Dan Connolly and their backers to discuss the
apparent conflict and present their conclusions at the HTTP-WG
meeting. The email addresses I've collected are:
	Dave Kristol <>
	M. Hedlund <>
	Shel Kaphan <>
	Lou Montulli <>
	Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
	Dan Connolly <>

If I've somehow missed some crucial bit of information about the
"state of state", if you're unable to get together, or feel like this
is an unreasonable plan, would you please reply to me personally?

Received on Saturday, 24 February 1996 14:55:15 UTC