On 07/02/2012 07:37 PM, Richard Alimi wrote:
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?
It would be good to see this draft submitted. Getting a new milestone
for this is not a big deal if the WG is in agreement.
Martin
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
--
[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
