Re: FW: revised trusted cookie spec

> > [...]  I do not
> > know what were the primary motivations for developing RFC 2109, nor
> > what was discussed during the bulk of its development, nor have any
> > way to access and review those discussions.  That all was done by
> > a "sub-group" without archiving of its discussions.  This matter
> > did not get fully "on-track" w.r.t to IETF standardization principles
> > until discussions about fixing the bugs in RFC 2109 had commenced,
> > and the more formally structured HTTP-State sub-group with a formal,
> > reliably archived mail-list were "implemented".

The state subgroup was formed out of http-wg; see
<> and
following messages in the "Revised Charter" thread; and the minutes of the
December 1995 IETF (Dallas), which directly mention the subgroup

The state subgroup had several conference calls on which I took minutes; I
can probably dig them up if needed, though commentURL did not arise out of
those discussions.

[Larry Masinter writes:]
> In any case, the RFC itself is pretty self-explanatory.

One hopes!  

> Yes, the arguments for "commentURL" were as a response to difficulties
> with "Comment" in 2109. Personally, I'd rather see "Comment" removed
> than to continue to add capabilities to it.

I still think this whole discussion is totally pointless without buy-in
from vendors.  


Received on Tuesday, 19 August 1997 14:22:09 UTC