Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1m (Rev 13) [was Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List]

Thanks Francois, I'm wondering if we should distinguish "a conforming 
proxy" from a "a conforming deployment" to take into account section 4. 
My suggestion being that we have a "conforming content deployment" and a 
"conforming transformation deployment" or does that sound even more 
"pompous" :-)

Jo

On 23/07/2008 11:03, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Thanks for the updated draft!
> 
> Jo Rabin wrote:
> [...]
>> @@TODO - Conformance Statement [Francois, please? pretty please?]
> 
> Given our schedule, the rechartering should be done and we should be 
> able to publish the document as normative.
> But the AC review on the rechartering is not over yet. I don't expect 
> there will be any problem, but then it seems that problems arise each 
> time we anticipate something will go smoothly :-(
> 
> That being said, let's suppose for a minute things go as planned for 
> once...
> 
> We need a Conformance Statement, and the more precise the Conformance 
> Statement, the better.
> 
> The Content Transformation Guidelines apply to two classes of products:
>  1. Content Providers content (need to find a better name): "servers"
>  2. Content Transformation proxies: "proxies"
> 
> Most of the guidelines apply to "proxies", but I think we should still 
> have a conformance model for "servers", to emphasize the fact that all 
> parties need to make some "efforts" to work together, and to allow each 
> party to point the other one to the fact that they conform to the 
> specification.
> 
> The document is incredibly well organized, both in terms of sections and 
> in terms of content (for the coxswain, hip hip hurrey!):
>  - Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 4 apply to "proxies"
>  - Section 3.2 applies to "servers"
> 
> It is not mandatory, but we may want to reword all normative statements 
> to start with "proxies" or "servers". It's already the case for most of 
> them. There just remain a couple of guidelines that are either using a 
> singular form instead of a plural, either using a passive form:
>  e.g: in 3.3.1 Receipt of Cache-Control: no-transform
>     "the response MUST remain unaltered"
>     which could be rewritten as
>     "proxies MUST leave the response unaltered"
> 
> We should also flag normative and informative parts in some way.
> 
> Below is a (poor) (pompous) attempt to write a Conformance Statement.
> I would suggest to drop current section 2.3 and create a new normative 
> section 3. Conformance.
> 
> -----
> X. Conformance
> 
>  X.1 Classes of Products
>   The Content Transformation Guidelines specification has two classes of 
> products:
>    - Content Providers content [any better name?] identified in the 
> normative statements using the term *servers*
>    - Content Transformation proxies identified in the normative 
> statements using the term *proxies*
> 
>  X.2 Normative & Informative parts
>   Normative parts are identified by the use of *(Normative)* next to the 
> section name.
>   Informative parts are identified by the use of *(Non-Normative)* next 
> to the section name.
> 
>  X.3 Normative language for conformance requirements
>   The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, 
> should not, recommended, may, and optional in this Recommendation have 
> the meaning defined in [RFC 2119].
> 
>  X.4 Servers conformance
>   Servers are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if 
> they follow the statements defined in section 3.2 Server Response to Proxy
> 
>  X.5 Proxies conformance
>   Proxies are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if 
> they follow the statements defined in sections 3.1 Proxy Forwarding of 
> Request, 3.3 Proxy Forwarding of Response to User Agent, and 4. Testing
> -----
> 
> HTH,
> Francois.

Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 07:32:34 UTC