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

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

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;
Message-ID: <4D432DE2.8010107@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:58:10 -0800
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (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
Subject: [http-state] phase 2 work? (was: cake spec: server-side initiation only?)
Precedence: list

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.

thanks,

=JeffH

[http-state] phase 2 work? (was: cake spec: serve… =JeffH
Re: [http-state] phase 2 work? (was: cake spec: s… Adam Barth