Re: Last Call: Applicability Statement for HTTP State Management to BCP

Larry Masinter:
>Anyone who is not satisfied with the resolution of this dispute
>can follow the dispute reoslution procedures outlined in RFC 2026,
>but I maintain that, as far as the IETF process is concerned, the
>working group reached "consensus" (albeit rough) on the entire

Dear Larry,

I am sorry if you took my assertion about a lack of consensus on 2109
somewhat personally in your capacity as HTTP working group chair.
Reading your message, with all its invocation of procedural machinery,
I am unsure whether you believe I was trying to somehow dispute old
actions of the chair.  I was not.  I have no strong interest in
examining the question of whether or not the HTTP wg chair applied any
rules correctly some N years ago.  For what it is worth, I certainly
recall that, after 2109 was published, it became much more
controversial than its draft had ever been in the working group.

The main point I have been trying to make here is that there is
*currently*, in my considered opinion, no consensus, rough or
otherwise, on the correct default for the third party cookie filter in
the state-man-mec which is now in IETF last call.  After publication
of 2109 there has been a lot of discussion, but little convergence.  I
trust the IESG to sort out the process implications of all this when
they make a decision on the draft.

Now, as you were also somewhat involved in the post-2109 discussions,
I would be interested in your view of the level of agreement reached

>Larry Masinter
>(as HTTP working group chair)


Received on Monday, 19 July 1999 22:22:09 UTC