Subject: Re: [saag] Input for conflict review of draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:41:30 -0500

I floated this about two weeks ago, and there've been no responses.
This tells me that there is *not* interest in taking this document on
in a working group, whether it be a revived httpstate WG, or the
existing websec group, or whatever.  It is on next week's telechat (15
Nov) for the IESG to decide how to respond to the Independent Stream
Editor about the document.

Unless we're convinced otherwise, I plan to propose the following for
IESG approval:

1. The 5742 response is, "The IESG has concluded that this work is
related to IETF work done in the websec and httpbis working groups,
but this relationship does not prevent publishing."

2. The authors are asked to please add the company name to the title
and introduction, to make it clear that this is their company's
proposal, presented for the community's information.

Barry

> All that said, here's what I think, as the AD who's shepherding this
> through the conflict review:
>
> 1. It's probably acceptable to do this through the ISE -- that is,
> this probably does not *conflict* with IETF work.
>
> 2. It's probably better to do this through the IETF Stream -- it will
> get better review and be a more solid document that way.
>
> 3. The authors are happy to do it that way; I've talked with them about it.
>
> 4. We could charter a new "son of httpstate" working group for this,
> we could fit it into an existing working group (httpbis or appsawg,
> likely), or we could do it as an AD-sponsored document (I would be
> happy to sponsor it, and I suspect Stephen would also).  If we did
> that, it would go as Proposed Standard   ... or we could let it
> continue through the Independent Stream, as Informational.
>
> Thoughts?