- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:47:29 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: Koen.Holtman@cern.ch, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com, iesg@ietf.org, http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com
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 >document. 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 therein. >Larry Masinter >(as HTTP working group chair) Koen.
Received on Monday, 19 July 1999 22:22:09 UTC