Gabor, On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> We had good technical discussions during our last F2F, with good > proposals on how to close some of the open issues. I’ll try to summarize > the outcome in the next couple of emails, starting with the least > controversial items:**** > > ** ** > > There were no objections against Vince’s proposal to use ** ** > > ** ** > > JSON-RPC, as indicated in slides 7&8 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx**** > > Keeping the PAWS and HTTP layers separate and Indicating errors as > proposed in slide 9 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx > FYI. Because of the acceptance of JSON-RPC, slide 9 is not quite accurate, but the intent remains the same. The error codes would be returned within JSON-RPC error messages. > **** > > Use RFC5491 for geo-location encoding (someone needs to JSON encode it), > instead of RFC6225, to support requirement D8.**** > > Use vCard encoding for the contact field (slide 18 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx )**** > > ** ** > > I’d like to confirm these on the list. If you see any issues with the > above, please notify the list asap.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks, Gabor**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
