Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 04 August 2009 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@adambarth.com>
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 962DC3A6EF7 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 ZeDzVv3jE8Y1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f213.google.com (mail-gx0-f213.google.com [209.85.217.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1803A6998 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so6394900gxk.13 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.146.5 with SMTP id t5mr11908995ybd.223.1249351040116; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im>
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> <4A778A04.6060008@stpeter.im>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:57:00 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 01:57:20 -0000

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre<stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 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).

Forgive my ignorance of IETF process, but RFC 2026 says:

[[
   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.
]]

The "Informational" status does not appear appropriate for this
document because the Internet community seems to have reached
consensus about the behavior of the Cookie and Set-Cookie header as
evidenced by billions of such headers traveling over the Internet
between hundreds of implementations every day.

Adam