Reinaldo Penno wrote: >>> Which one represents P4P/Info Export? Any elaboration? >> Ellipse 2 was the P4P/Infoexport (at least that was the intent, if >> not the delivery.) > > Can you elaborate which part of the draft did give you this idea? Reading > the draft I'm not sure from where this idea (Ellipse 2 only) can be derived > since it seems clear that is not the case given the different queries > explained. > > Anyway, that does not reflect the merged protocol in its current form since > it can provide all the functionality described (all ellipses) including > negotiation through service descriptors.
Ellipse 2 did _not_ represent the P4P/Infoexport merged proposal. If we really had to link it to some solution, the closest one would probably be the first version of infoexport; however, it was just meant to represent a radical approach, in opposition to 1, the other extreme also not necessarily impersonated by any proposal. In fact, the goal of the discussion was to compare approaches rather than solutions, to try and find some common ground (and to me it was quite successful in identifying it in 3). -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
