Re: process question

On 07/09/2014 03:00 PM, John Arwe wrote:
> Separating this from the 2NN majority-content on behalf of Sandro's 
> sanity.
>
> > > 3a: If [1] intends its new Prefer opt-in to be a "true hint" (i.e. 
> server
> > > can ignore it if the server so desires), as currently written, 
> then our
> > > Must Not should be written in terms of that Prefer header IMO;
>
> FYI, my thinking on this has evolved as I decoupled 2NN from paging 
> better (i.e. during drafting).  As now reflected in the editor's 
> draft, 2NN is an optional optimization over 303.  This was already the 
> case in the normative text, but I fleshed out the progression in the 
> new chapter 4 which subsumed and added to 5.2's former example.  I 
> also raised Eric P 3 lists in the course of that drafting ;-)  But 
> basically, since 2NN is optional per-client, in order to sensibly talk 
> about paging we have to mention both the 2NN and 303 cases in the 
> server side.
>
> Process question: is there any value in carrying 2NN as At Risk at 
> this point?  I don't mind it staying that way if there's reason to, 
> but *if* it is the case that it's optional (it's a Should in the 
> already-existing normative text, which is now further qualified with 
> "if the client signals support for 2NN"), then I don't see its removal 
> as affecting compliance ... which is the usual reason for making 
> something At Risk.
>

It's kind of pedantic, but I don't see how we could keep the text 
without knowing what NN is.

       -- Sandro

>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages 
> <http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe> 
>
> Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
>