- From: Matthew Rubenstein <ruby@name.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:17:53 -0400
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
At 06:27 PM 7/10/97 -0700, Yaron Goland wrote: >Declare it historic and forget about it. As for the new draft, no one >seems interested in implementing it so why put an RFC on proposed track >when it will never make it to draft status? We need a consistent spec for interoperable Cookies. The UAs and servers implement them, and many applications rely on them. OPS is (will be) good for profiles, but the majority of our state info is application infrastructure, equally applicable to anonymous and ID'd users. Don't throw the interop baby out with the bathwater. > Yaron > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 9:25 AM >> To: Yaron Goland >> Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >> Subject: Re: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) " >> to Proposed Standard >> >> You have raised some (apparently new) objections to >> moving "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1)" to >> Proposed Standard. >> >> On the other hand, the working group has previously >> issued RFC 2109, a Proposed Standard, which has serious >> interoperability problems with currently deployed >> software. (I assume you're familiar with this software). >> >> So what do you recommend that we do? It seems intolerable >> to have a Proposed Standard that we wouldn't actually >> want to propose that people implement, and we should >> move on this. >> >> Withdraw 2109 (mark it Historical?) Document current >> practice for cookies? >> >> (If we proceed with this document, we should deal >> with Yaron's comments on 4.2.2.) >> >> Larry > > > -- Matthew Rubenstein North American Media Engines Toronto, Ontario *finger matt for public key* (416)943-1010 Chess is for computers.
Received on Friday, 11 July 1997 06:25:18 UTC