- From: Jaye, Dan <DJaye@engage.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:47:38 GMT
- To: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@bell-labs.com>, 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: 'Keith Moore' <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>, 'Patrik FBltstrBm' <paf@swip.net>, "'internet-drafts@ietf.org'" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
We have received positive interest from current user agent and server implementers for draft-ietf-http-trust-state-mgt-02.txt. However, given current widespread acceptance of current cookie implementations and default handling, there is no impetus for implementation. My understanding and opinion is, however, that the implementers of the most ubiquitous user agents will not fully implement state-man-mec-10.txt and all of its recommendations and defaults without some solution like trust-state-mgt. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Kristol [mailto:dmk@bell-labs.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 9:30 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: Keith Moore; Patrik FBltstrBm; internet-drafts@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: disposition of draft-ietf-http-* internet drafts Larry Masinter wrote: > [...] > I note that we cannot officially close until "HTTP State > Management Mechanism" has been completed: > > "HTTP State Management Mechanism", D. Kristol, L. Montulli, 07/29/1998, > <draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-10.txt,.ps> > > is marked as awaiting an applicability statement, which I presume is: > > "Applicability Statement for HTTP State Management", Keith Moore, > 11/23/1998, <draft-iesg-http-cookies-00.txt> > Yes and no. The applicability statement needs to be revised. But the real problem IMO is that state-man-mec is caught in IESG process hell, with some current IESG members unhappy with wording that was accepted by former IESG members. Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 07:53:27 UTC