Re: [http-state] http-state charter

Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz> Wed, 05 August 2009 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bil@corry.biz>
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 B842628C45C for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.843
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 GqUiupyAJSUL for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mindio.com (app1.bc.anu.net [193.189.141.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB6828C495 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [98.212.72.151]) by mail.mindio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A17DFC521; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:31:47 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4A78EF0E.602@corry.biz>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:31:42 -0500
From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <4A70D2D2.9050900@corry.biz> <4A731FCC.5040102@gmail.com> <4A735DD4.9040007@corry.biz> <4A777D12.5000106@gmail.com> <ab2c53a20908041341x2cb954b7h856ccc43b3fb3313@mail.gmail.com> <FD75C039-3A9E-4477-ACC0-249A270615CC@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <FD75C039-3A9E-4477-ACC0-249A270615CC@mnot.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:31:47 -0000

Mark Nottingham wrote on 8/4/2009 8:26 PM: 
> I would encourage people on this list to discuss how to make that
> happen, and not to try to second-guess the IETF process, what will and
> will not be acceptable to the IESG, etc; we'll get there soon enough.

So is it agreed then that this WG will work to produce a RFC that specifies Cookies as-they-exist-today?

Our charter currently reads (in part):

"The working group will create a new RFC that obsoletes RFC 2965 and
specifies Cookies as they are used in existing implementations and
deployments."


Does that work?


- Bil