On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > FWIW, I support publication; this is a very well-written spec, and a long overdue revision. Thanks. > 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. I've added a sentence to this effect to the overview. Adam > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf