Hi All, We have submitted an update to the ALTO Protocol draft which addresses the outstanding items from the last IETF and the couple of discussions on the list.
The main portions of the protocol have remained relatively stable for quite a while now, so it would be good to look towards wrapping this up. Based on recent activity, I know folks are already looking towards how we want to extend it. The changes in this version are: - Removed the section on redistribution (since some of the mechanism there may eventually be provided by the JOSE WG). The intent is to submit that as a separate draft, but that isn't done yet. - Removed the Server Information Service, since its only existing purpose was to carry certificates used in the now-removed redistribution mechanism. It didn't seem worthwhile to have an interface in the base protocol that was entirely unused, and it was independent from everything else and thus would fit well in a separate document. However, I'd be happy to add that back if the WG feels like we should have that in the base protocol. Discuss :) - Added an explicit note that costs in the cost map are end-to-end costs. Let us know if the added text still does not make the semantics clear. - Changed the data type of costs from JSONNumber to JSONValue in the formal specification. Implementations are required to use this as JSONNumber unless an extension document indicates that something else is permitted (and that extension document should indicate when and how to do this without breaking existing implementations). This was provided as an extension hook for cost values that are not numbers. If there are ideas for how this text could be refined, that would be great. - Added greater than or equal to, less than or equal to, and equal to operators to constraints. - Added an explicit note to caution clients against constraints applied to ordinal cost maps. Based on Bill's thread "What do constraints mean for ordinal costs?", the cleanest solution seemed to be to indicate that cost constraints shouldn't pertain to ordinal cost maps. Looking at this again, it seemed unnecessarily-constraining to forbid it (meaning, it would be an error to do so), but there is now a note indicating why clients may not get what they asked for. If that isn't sufficient, please let us know. Thanks! Rich _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
