Re: On ISSUE-58: Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation

To start the ball rolling:

> 1: [Pierre-58] is the starting point.   I'd propose people use email
> as a straw poll response to doing so (there's nothing magic about 
> Monday meetings). 

+1 

> 
> 2: (by c2a) we should consider adjusting the "cacheable" portion of 
> the header name.  Since I don't enjoying naming parties, I'd propose
> we do so in a separate thread or issue.  Proposals needed.  Leaving 
> it to the editors might be one proposal. 

Propose: X-LDP-Inlined-Member

+0

> 
> 3: (by c2b, c3a) we need to decide whether or not to add the etags 
> in the header.   I'd propose people use email as a straw poll 
> response, assuming we DO add them (in effect we say c3a outweighs c2b). 

+1 



Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario