[http-state] phase 2 work? (was: cake spec: server-side initiation only?)

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Fri, 28 January 2011 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA6B3A6862 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXZjp9VaqyqR for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E28E3A680E for <http-state@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23688 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jan 2011 20:58:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) ( by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2011 20:58:09 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=SV+qhiuT4WeJm0Iy4bzdy8byvSxFSdc1V/r5l9L4NhRHurX+ZCavdHfGGawQklyV4cwexDMwD+rCqpjF+nWr6LnhwwH8CpFIFPTkIatVArBVa4czuQy0TdtCV9/8Ndep;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([] helo=[]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1PivOS-0004xR-Ef for http-state@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:58:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4D432DE2.8010107@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:58:10 -0800
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20101027)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HTTP State WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: [http-state] phase 2 work? (was: cake spec: server-side initiation only?)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:55:03 -0000

Adam said..
 > I've been holding off discussing these topics until we're done with
 > the basic cookie spec.  That seems to be mostly wrapping up.  This
 > working group isn't charted to work on improvements to the cookie
 > protocol, but I suspect Jeff would indulge us if we wanted to discuss
 > it for a bit.

sure, at this point it seems draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie is essentially done 
(fingers crossed), so it seems appropriate to discuss where we might want to 
take HTTP State Management (and where we might want to at all).

So please feel free to discuss what you think may be on the proverbial table 
for "phase 2" work if we were to recharter the working group.