[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 [127.0.0.1]) 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-Level:
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 [67.222.39.38]) 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) (74.220.219.114) 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 ([67.161.32.29] helo=[192.168.11.11]) 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 2.0.0.24 (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 67.161.32.29 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. WHAT DOCUMENT? The document in last call is: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08 <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08.txt> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08> Issue tracker at: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpstate/trac/query?component=cookie> WHAT IS A LAST CALL FOR? 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. HOW LONG DOES IT LAST? 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). WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? After the last call completes, there are three possible outcomes: 1) No changes are required and we request our ADs to put forward the document to the IESG for proposed standard status. 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. WHAT SHOULD I DO? 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!