- From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:00:52 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 19:04:39 UTC
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > That leaves the following two drafts for consideration: > > * Cookie Priorities - < > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-priority> > * EAT Cookies - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-omnomnom> > > In Berlin Mark sought a sense of the room on adopting these two drafts. You can find the minutes of the discussion at https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf96/minutes.md#cookie-priorities and https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf96/minutes.md#expiring-aggressively-those-http-cookies-eat-cookies The sense of the room was: 1] do not adopt draft-west-cookie-priority 2] adpot draft-thomson-http-omnomnom This email is meant to confirm that on the mailing list. Please send any comments you have that should be addressed before adoption (realizing that adopted documents aren't meant to be already complete - this is just adoption.) -Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 19:04:39 UTC