Dear all,
As we work to finalize a newer version to get feedback, here is a quick
question that we need feedback/comments to have a quick closure. The issue
can be discussed using the current posted version (
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-protocol/?include_text=1),
although we will post a newer version soon.
Specifically, consider the first IRD example in Sec. 7.6.3. One can
identify that among the six entries, 5 are base or "leaf" entries, which
represent specific Information Resources, and one is a "container" entry:
{
"uri" : "http://custom.alto.example.com/maps";,
"media-types" : [
"application/alto-networkmap+json",
"application/alto-costmap+json"
],
"accepts" : [
"application/alto-networkmapfilter+json",
"application/alto-costmapfilter+json"
]
},
In other words, one can envision that IRD can be a hierarchy for
flexibility and delegation.
A question is whether we explicitly distinguish such two types of
entries in syntax -- they are different in semantics already.
Note that distinguishing the two types by simply checking the number
of entries in media-types or accepts will be less robust.
One possibility is the following. A "leaf" IRD entry has the format:
"uri": ""
"media-type": ""
"accept": ""
"capabilities" : {}
A "container" IRD has the format:
"uri" :
"media-types" : []
"accepts" : []
// no capabilities
Any thought?
Richard
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
