Subject: [http-state] thoughts on getting to IETF Last Call

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:45:11 -0700

Some folks had indicated in the "IETF-wide Last Call for -httpstate-cookie-10 
?" thread (on this list) that they felt there were items from prior threads 
weren't addressed.

I went through those threads in the past day or so and found a few items that I 
agree merit fixups (which are simple). I've sent separate messages about those.

I propose that we apply the fixes that Adam has queued from the recent 
discussions, as well as the ones I've suggested, to -httpstate-cookie-11, 
yielding a -12, and then we goto IETF Last Call with -12.

I've culled together the list of queued messages/fixups below (which includes 
the ones I just sent to the list).

thoughts?

thanks/HTH,

=JeffH

Re: [http-state] Set-Cookie vs header folding
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00979.html

Re: [http-state] adopting IDNA2008 (was: Nits with references)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00986.html

Re: [http-state] wrt domain-value production (was: IETF-wide Last Call for 
-httpstate-cookie-10 ?)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00987.html

[http-state] wrt terminology: "request-host" and "request-uri"
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00993.html

[http-state] wrt definitions of "flags" and algorithms
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00994.html

[http-state] wrt reference for netscape cookie spec
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state/current/msg00995.html

---
end

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:20:53 -0600

On 9/14/10 2:45 PM, =JeffH wrote:
> Some folks had indicated in the "IETF-wide Last Call for
> -httpstate-cookie-10 ?" thread (on this list) that they felt there were
> items from prior threads weren't addressed.
> 
> I went through those threads in the past day or so and found a few items
> that I agree merit fixups (which are simple). I've sent separate
> messages about those.
> 
> discussions, as well as the ones I've suggested, to
> -httpstate-cookie-11, yielding a -12, and then we goto IETF Last Call
> with -12.

Thanks to Adam for resolving the open issues and pushing out -12. Based
on list discussion it looks to me as if we might need to publish -13
before IETF Last Call to clear up a few more stray topics, but I'll
leave that for the Chair to decide. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:22:41 -0700

> leave that for the Chair to decide. :)

-13 isn't a very auspicious number...  :)

Adam