On 8 Aug 2014, at 09:06, Jan Seedorf <[email protected]> wrote: >> (2) However, some authors feel that we should not enforce too strong a >> requirement to make deployment harder. Hence, instead of changing the >> aforementioned MAY to MUST, these authors feel that it is better to make >> the pid endpoint property optional. Hence, we make the two changes of E1 >> and E6. > I agree with this assessment and am therefore in favour of the changes from > "MUST" to "MAY”.
+1 Ben > > - Jan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:05 AM >> To: IETF ALTO >> Cc: Megan Ferguson >> Subject: [alto] Request for comments on two changes for RFC7285-to-be >> >> Dear ALTOnians, >> >> The authors of the ALTO Protocol are finalizing the final version, to be >> published as RFC 7285. We seek your comments/feedback on two non- >> editorial changes. >> >> But first, the text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are available at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285.txt >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285.xml >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285-diff.html >> >> A summary of the key changes is listed below: >> E1: the change from MUST to MAY in Section 7.1.1 >> E2: update from "misses" to "omits" in Section 8.5.2 >> E3: the addition of MUST and text addition to Section 10.8.1 >> E4: update from "both" to "either...or" in Section 11.2.3.6 >> E5: text update to Section 11.4.1.3, paragraph 1 >> E6: text deletion from Section 11.4.1.4. The deleted text is "In particular, >> the >> information resource closure MUST provide the look up of pid for every ALTO >> network map defined." >> >> The AD has approved all changes except E1 and E6, which are non-editorial. >> >> There are two reasons for E1 and E6: >> >> (1) Make the document consistent. Specifically, the first paragraph of >> Section >> 11.4.1 states that "An endpoint property resource provides information >> about properties for individual endpoints. It MAY be provided by an ALTO >> server." Without E1 and E6, the document will imply that at least one >> endpoint properties service (i.e., one to provide pid) must be provided. >> Hence, one way to achieve consistency is to change the MAY in the first para >> of 11.4.1 to be MUST. >> >> (2) However, some authors feel that we should not enforce too strong a >> requirement to make deployment harder. Hence, instead of changing the >> aforementioned MAY to MUST, these authors feel that it is better to make >> the pid endpoint property optional. Hence, we make the two changes of E1 >> and E6. >> >> Your comments and feedback will be greatly appreciated. We will wait for >> one week for any feedback. >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> Richard > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
