Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com> Wed, 05 August 2009 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dan.winship@gmail.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 2587528C5A1 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 lbGSBpPalsce for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mysterion.org (mysterion.org [69.25.196.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3917728C516 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from desktop.home.mysterion.org (c-76-97-71-164.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [76.97.71.164]) by mysterion.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 36E04802AE; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4A79A24F.5030000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:16:31 -0400
From: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
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> <7789133a0908031857k6d9e2911x710967bf0ffdcb88@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908040911070.15554@yvahk2.pbagnpgbe.fr> <7789133a0908040219s14ebdd97g4d092f90865f3c50@mail.gmail.com> <4A7855AF.2080505@corry.biz>
In-Reply-To: <4A7855AF.2080505@corry.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:16:42 -0000

On 08/04/2009 11:37 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote on 8/4/2009 4:19 AM: 
>> I think we should obsolete those cookie specs and replace them with a
>> standards track cookie spec that is actually useful.
> 
> I agree.  How do we then resolve the concerns Dan Winship brought up?

Ignore them. It doesn't matter. There seems to be basically universal
consensus in the group that the most important thing is to have a
description of how cookies actually currently work. So let's write that.
Exactly how and where it gets published is not really that important. If
the end result is acceptable as a replacement for 2965, then great, we
publish it as that. If it's not, then we publish it as Informational. If
we can't push it through the RFC process at all then we publish it
through WHATWG or somewhere else. It doesn't matter; the document
doesn't need to have the blessing of any formal standards body anyway,
because its goal is to describe reality, not to try to change it.

-- Dan