- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:20:42 +0200
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi folks, > Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I would > like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC 2965 (HTTP > State Management Mechanism) should be in scope for the proposed WG. > > Question: Should RFC 2965 revision be in scope for the WG? > > Please chose one of the following answers: > > 1). No > 2). Yes > 3). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently > proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG") > 4). I have another opinion, which is .... > > Please send answers to the mailing list, or directly to me *and* Mark > Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>. > And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of > answers. 3. As long as it doesn't take away cycles from delivering RFC2616bis. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 13:20:53 UTC