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

Re: FW: revised trusted cookie spec

From: hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970819135138.2255D-100000@shell7.ba.best.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4217

> > [...]  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
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q4/0144.html> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC