I propose closing this action per the IRC dialog below.Michael[tm] Smith, 8 Sep 2009, 18:52:54
<MikeSmith> hsivonen: action 96 is on you and due date for it has come up. (you changed the due date a couple months ago)
<-- laplink has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
<MikeSmith> hsivonen: seems like it can be closed at this point
<hsivonen> MikeSmith: I'm ok with closing if you are
<MikeSmith> hsivonen: OK. I'm actually not sure why we were keeping it open. But anyway, during the telcon I will suggest closing it
<hsivonen> MikeSmith: Zakim picked me as a "victim". I don't want to track it.
<MikeSmith> hsivonen: understood
<MikeSmith> though maybe we need to get somebody else to take another action on it. I guess the issue now is that there are people who have objected to any mention of Origin in the spec at all
<MikeSmith> hsivonen: anyway, I'll add a note to the issue with a copy/paste of our IRC conversation here
<rubys1> is origin still in the spec?
<MikeSmith> rubys1: yeah, though it's not really defined in the spec
--> laplink (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #html-wg
<rubys1> then to me there still is work to be done (be it a bug or an issue, I care not)
<MikeSmith> the current spec just says in a couple places, "Send a header named Origin with the following contents"
<rubys1> I don't believe that origin is the current name, nor do I believe the IETF is comfortable with the idea.
<MikeSmith> rubys1: well, then it seems somebody other than hsivonen will need to take an action on it
<rubys1> demote it to raised
<MikeSmith> rubys1: I was just talking about action 96. but if you want to issue moved to raised, I can do that too
<rubys1> ah, I was confused. closing action 96 is fine with me.