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

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
>
> --On 11. august 2007 17:35 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> 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 ....
>>
>
> My response:
>
> Yes - updating of 2965 to document how the mechanism works, and
> possibly describing issues due to non-conformant uses and inherent
> limitations in the mechanism, SHOULD be in scope for the WG.
>
> No - creating a new cookie mechanism to supplant the one specified in
> 2965 SHOULD NOT be in scope for the WG.
>
> That doesn't fit any of alternatives 1-3, so I'm a 4....
>
Actually that sounds like 2 - it sais "revisions", not "reinvention" :-)
But whatever the number agree
with what you say.

    Cheers Leif

Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 08:51:19 UTC