Kai, It never occurred to me that someone might send an ADD & REMOVE for the same id in the same control message. I¹ll make it clear that is illegal.
I¹ll try to revise the draft by Friday. Would you or anyone else like to look it over before I officially post it as a new version? - Wendy From: EXT Gao Kai <[email protected]> Date: Wed, March 23, 2016 at 23:04 To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [alto] State of the WG Wendy, 1. That makes perfect sense and thanks for the clarification. 2. Maybe it's just my paranoia but I feel worried about "what if someone squash ADD/REMOVE for the same request-id in one request". May I suggest that we add a statement that this behaviour is undefined and must be avoided? Sorry for my obsession with these details...Thanks! Regards, Kai On 23/03/16 02:10, Wendy Roome wrote: > Kai, > > 1. The Create-Stream request must be POST, not GET. The ALTO server doesn¹t > care, but the HTTP protocol allows proxies to cache GET requests. Proxies are > not supposed to cache POST requests. > > 2. The control commands I defined don¹t really interact with each other, so I > don¹t think we need to define a processing order, other than to say that the > server should not close the stream unless there are no resources left after > all commands have been processed. Oh yes, SHUTDOWN should be the only command > in a request; there is no point in combining SHUTDOWN with anything else. > > Does everyone like this alternative? If so, I will update the draft. > > - Wendy >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
