Hi all,
Just to note:
The ALTO protocol is approved by the IESG and is now with the RFC
editor. This means that there is no chance to change anything
substantial anymore.
For instance, changing normative language is not possible anymore.
The only way to change something, is to file an errata once the RFC is
published by the RFC editor:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php
This makes the whole conversation below moot.
Thanks,
Martin (Transport Area Director)
Am 08.08.14 um 06:04 schrieb Y. Richard Yang:
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
