On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:44:43PM +0800, Kai GAO wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the situation, I wonder if the > following procedure makes sense: > > 1. Extensions of the ALTO protocol should not explicitly cite a specific > (especially the obsoleted) JSON RFC but "follow the same JSON format as in > the base protocol (RFC 7285)". > 2. Charter a draft to clarify the impacts of new JSON (and probably TLS > too) standards on all ALTO-related RFCs. > > Or maybe we should have a standard paragraph stating the situation and put > it in every ALTO extension? > > What do you think?
This seems to be sidestepping the key question, of whether UTF-8 is actually the de facto interoperable JSON encoding for ALTO usage, or whether there is nontrivial usage of other encodings. It seems a little odd to consider procedural options without knowing what the right answer is. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
