Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?

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