- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:41:15 -0400
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
3. maybe in particular, the group might consider that the privacy mechanisms specified have not worked so well, and consider whether there should be some additional protection for users against abuse of cookies. I don't think it would be appropriate for the WG to relax protections against cookie abuse. however this topic might be a rathole and might best be deferred until the group has completed other milestones. >> 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 > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 19:41:45 UTC