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

RE: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) " to Propo

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:25:57 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48503187B2D@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3731
That is not accurate, Microsoft is planning on implementing hit meeting.
I also know that AOL and Netscape have expressed interest although, in
so far as I am aware, neither party has committed to an implementation.

As for RFC 2109, what happens to a protocol that is broken and that no
one intends to implement? The thing should just be declared null and
void and the whole situation forgotten about.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	koen@win.tue.nl [SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 10, 1997 1:08 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	masinter@parc.xerox.com;
> http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) "
> to Propo
> Yaron Goland:
> >
> [...]
> >BTW I find it strange that we are pushing a draft to proposed
> standard
> >when no one has implemented it and, in so far as I am aware, is even
> >planning on implementing it.
> A proposed standard does not require existing or planned
> implementations.
> I am not aware of anybody planning to implement hit metering either,
> and that is going to be a proposed standard too.
> For a proposed standard, the only thing required is that the WG thinks
> it is a good idea.  If you were to argue this WG as a whole has no
> consensus on state-man-mec being a good idea, you would have a very
> valid point.
> Though I have no objections to this thing being submitted as a
> proposed standard, I think that submission as `an experimental RFC
> which supersedes 2109' would better reflect the WG status.
> Not submitting it at all would mean not fixing the bugs in 2109, which
> is not an acceptable option as far as I am concerned.
> >		Yaron
> Koen.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 18:27:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:02 UTC