[http-state] Initiating WG Last Call: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 16:22 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 A57463A6A49 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.242
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tr+OnyvtTQsk for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 09:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B4B483A691B for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16054 invoked by uid 0); 11 May 2010 16:21:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) ( by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 11 May 2010 16:21:32 -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=TSEDY3qBxnvKoi7CtdnQVqPYCPIbrDIKLP68+J4EO0ZxHa+ZOhtlJ35B31+1FK425FKoj1DZECz9MvKuFsLVoB+7IMdZOrzp5aYTdC1IrhXqlZaRSRi44l63TNLi0BQj;
Received: from c-67-161-32-29.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([] helo=[]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1OBsD6-0000FF-2m for http-state@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:21:32 -0600
Message-ID: <4BE98409.8000209@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:21:29 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20100411)
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] Initiating WG Last Call: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08
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, 11 May 2010 16:22:15 -0000

The purpose of this message is to initiate an HTTPSTATE
Working Group Last Call on the "HTTP State Management
Mechanism" Internet Draft.


The document in last call is:




  Issue tracker at:



The purpose of the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) is to
ensure that the working group has reached consensus on the
document, believes that all the known outstanding issues
have been addressed, and is ready to put the document
forward for consideration as an RFC at Proposed Standard
maturity level.

During the last call, any comments on the documents are
collected and discussed on the http-state@ietf.org
mailing list.


The last call starts today and will last approximately
three weeks. It will end on Monday, 31-May-2010 2359h PDT
(UTC: Tuesday, June 1, 2010 at 0659h).


After the last call completes, there are three possible

1) No changes are required and we request our ADs to put
forward the document to the IESG for proposed standard

2) Minor changes agreed to on the list are required, and
the document is revised. We then ask our ADs to put
forward the revised document to the IESG for proposed
standard status.

3) Major issues are raised and no consensus is reached on
the list. In this case, we slink back and discuss things
until consensus is reached, at which time another working
group last call will be issued.

Assuming we achieve outcome 1) or 2), and that the ADs
agree with our assessment, the next stop for the document
is with the IESG. The IESG reads it and may approve the
documents (with or without changes), or send the document
back to the working group to have major issues addressed.

If the first outcome happens, the document is put forward
for a two-week IETF-wide Last Call, and after successful
completion the document is published as an RFC at proposed
standard maturity level.

If the second outcome happens, we go back and address
the issues, putting the document forward again when we
believe we're ready.


You should read the document, making sure that 1) there
are no problems or deficiencies or outstanding issues that
need to be resolved; and 2) that there are no typos,
formatting problems, grammatical errors, etc.

Any substantive problems you find, you should send to the
list. Any minor problems (typos, etc.) you may send to the
list or just to the authors. If, for some reason, you have
comments you don't want to send to the entire list, you may
send them to me.

Read, enjoy, and send your comments in!