On 6 Nov 2012, at 19:20, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 01:11 PM, Junchang(Jason) Wang wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Or adding a single sentence about potential issues of clients which
>> aren't rfc2616 compliant in Section 6.3 would benefit readers a lot.
>
> Jason: The problem with is why stop at the specific example of Content-
> Encoding? A client that isn't compliant will rfc2616 can potentially
> do anything it wants and fail in a spectacular way, or worse, cause the
> ALTO server to fail in a spectacular way.
>
> I think Section 6.3 takes a reasonable stand that ALTO clients and
> servers MUST be compliant with rfc2616. Hedging our bets and saying
> that clients MAY be partially compatible opens up a larger can of
> worms, unfortunately.
+1 the ALTO protocol spec is clear - to implement ALTO you need to be RFC2616
compliant. If someone wants to implement an ALTO client that isn't RFC2616
compliant then they are on their own and interoperability isn't guaranteed.
Ben
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
