Folks, the interoperability event and the meeting in Quebec have helped a big deal in identifying and framing the remaining (few) issues with the ALTO protocol. Since the specs are otherwise fairly mature, we would like to encourage a final effort from the working group for addressing them and eventually moving the document on the publication path.
We are about to start individual threads for each issue; if you have any
opinions about them please let them be heard, as, especially in a couple
cases, the consensus of the working group is quite unclear.
Here's a short list of such issues:
+ map-vtag field length;
+ behavior in case the server is not strictly "authoritative" for the
information requested (and/or provided);
+ multiple cost type information;
+ what protocol features should be mandatory and what optional.
--
Ciao,
Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
