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.

If you haven't replied to this question, please send your replies by 
September 3rd.

Thanks,
Alexey