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

[Stefanos Harhalakis <[e-mail]>]

On Monday 27 August 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]>.
> > 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.

I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but I'd suggest 1 (No). The rationale 
can be summarized in the question: "Why yes?". 







to 4:
Discuss it in the list first. 

  Then, maybe vote for '3'.

  After reading the minutes (again), I understand that this will only change 
RFC 2695 to 'become' the Netscape doc. So, I don't actually see it as a hi 
priority issue, thinking that a well accepted document already exists 
(Netscape) and there is no confusion. Also, shouldn't this become a new RFC 
that will replace 2695?