The material has been migrated to another document locally, but it isn't yet ready for submission. I don't think it should be completely abandoned, but in my opinion the priority is lower than getting the base protocol. As was mentioned in the discussion w.r.t. requirements, there are some things that it provides such as guidelines on which clients should make use of the information and for how long (above and beyond what we get for free from HTTP caching).
With your AD hat on, do we need the additional document to be explicitly mentioned in the charter? Rich On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have just read the ALTO protocol slides of the meeting in Paris and do > wonder what has ultimately happened to the redistribution, as the slide > state: > > "Will be submitted as separate draft that may make use of JOSE" > (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-alto-2.pdf) > > This functionality is gone from the base protocol, but we do not have any > replacement insight. Do we completely abandon this? > > Thanks, > > 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 283 > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
