- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:45:04 +0100
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.... Good point. I've implicitly assumed that new mechanisms of any sort are out of scope for the WG. Otherwise the proposed WG would have HTTPEXT acronym ;-) With this clarification, I think your answer is 2).
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 09:46:16 UTC