Apologies for the late reply. FWIW, I support publication; this is a very well-written spec, and a long overdue revision. One small suggestion: it may be worthwhile to point out that the presence of a Cookie request header or Set-Cookie response header does not preclude HTTP caches from storing and reusing a response. Regards, On 19/11/2010, at 6:30 AM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the HTTP State Management Mechanism > WG (httpstate) to consider the following document: > - 'HTTP State Management Mechanism' > <draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-18.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2010-12-02. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > http-state mailing list > http-state@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf