Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 05 September 2007 19:03 UTC
Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IT09m-0003ey-PD; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:03:18 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IT09l-0003et-H4 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:03:17 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IT09l-0003el-7W for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:03:17 -0400
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IT09j-00033h-W6 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:03:17 -0400
Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Rt79cQBOxqi0@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:03:14 +0100
Message-ID: <46DEFD9E.8030006@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:03:58 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
References: <46BDE53B.1070404@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <46BDE53B.1070404@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org
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. I've reviewed replies with Mark and here are the results: No - 2 people Yes - 2 people (or 4 people, as 2 replied "Yes/Maybe") Maybe - 7 people (or 5 people if you exclude the 2 who said yes/maybe) So consensus seems to be in favor of "Maybe" with very slight bias toward Yes.
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cooki… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cooki… Keith Moore
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cooki… Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cooki… Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cooki… Alexey Melnikov