Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 04 August 2009 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE0128C0F5 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjxTO7-Aa5Af for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B807A3A6AF0 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EC9040C89; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:08:21 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:08:20 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908040015310.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908040015310.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] http-state charter
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:08:19 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/3/09 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Dan Winship wrote:
>> I am not an RFC expert (IANAIANA?) and am just basing this on what I've 
>> absorbed through IETF mailing list osmosis, but there are various things 
>> in the real-world-cookie spec that I imagine would result in it being 
>> rejected as a standards-track RFC.
> 
> I think it's more important that we end up with an accurate spec than one 
> that the IETF accepts.

The distinction between Informational and Standards Track RFCs seems
apropos here (consult RFC 2026 for details).

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkp3igQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzi/QCeM81SFV8r8lfiNh2G7pMmJQpS
ur0Anjk4Y0lKm4J6fYMa9AXLW+7syt6L
=f9dA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----