Hi Martin, On Thursday 18 March 2010 7:29:18 am Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Hi all, > > While reading draft-ietf-alto-protocol-03 is stumbled over the error > handling. > > It seems that the error handling of ALTO relies on the http error codes, > but does not provide its own error code or proceed. > > I see this a shortcoming of the current design and also as not favourably. > > This mixes transport related error messages (e.g., 404 not found, i.e., the > general alto resource your asking for isn't here) and errors related the > actual ALTO handling (e.g., asking guidance for private or reserved IP > addresses that cannot be rated by ALTO, syntax errors, or not understood > objects). > > My proposal: > - separate both levels clearly > - define an error object for cases where no or only a partial answer can be > given - define that the server can deliver some information he has > understood (e.g., some IP addresses) within the given semantics, as > defined in the draft as is. > > Martin > > [email protected] > > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division > NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London > W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
This makes sense, and I think it is reasonable to adopt for the next version of the document. It would be good to get opinions from others here as well. -- Richard Alimi Department of Computer Science Yale University _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
