Design Issue: Can we go ahead and remove persistent settings?

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Thu, 02 May 2013 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FEC21F84FD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAtY3buQuOwu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C179021F84F9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UY1aH-00082w-Is for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UY1aH-00082w-Is@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UY1a7-00081S-Au for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:27 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UY1a6-0004IN-AY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:27 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 16so941070obc.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=EMo23KY8bkOpegqe8cKcRhF7wikL8FXDmX/MlzQVZf4=; b=tpgC1501Yg+gfnYsrFkQNhAVTwdvsoVQAfWuXckayU9gmwtH6nSwxdI4IPfPHznoz6 AqWWitZQQa0iYs68hulR5b4lC+pXF59INZcF/8ElLT2/CFDj7BxJdvW2z1lhrTTtLeFJ 5OYKfPEUjPlX/0/wBy7m+Jtq/pp4NYBWGe5zAogsVi3xOxgXC273Mong3qOCKvNnICmW KCn5/oCVVKUe933lLjqo/mI9ZWiz83i+Xqx1G5JY+oDIijT0a3Uu0+IsR12QIG6HR94/ oWW3w2xh+SRbLQMFznMCpTNLV4Z4kHeRrZxHjswCnqxLrYq9JIfWdM4/Hq5IXPQHb+qZ qSoA==
X-Received: by 10.60.161.14 with SMTP id xo14mr2301783oeb.46.1367532120107; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:01:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbez1frua2Qry+sGt8+iYbbWam1ueunLQ43+ZiZOWUVvBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.688, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UY1a6-0004IN-AY 158b118496f5dcb1af24b57a5fc3e09f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Design Issue: Can we go ahead and remove persistent settings?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbez1frua2Qry+sGt8+iYbbWam1ueunLQ43+ZiZOWUVvBg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17790
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

It seems that an overall majority of folks who have weighed in
recently are in favor of dropping persistent SETTINGS. Rather than
just continuing to call that bit "at risk", is there enough of a
consensus to just go ahead and remove that bit from the draft?