Re: LDP paging + IETF 2NN draft comments - some questions I came across while working on editorial issues

* John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> [2014-07-08 15:47-0400]
> > Can we keep separate the 2NN issues from the issues that exist whether 
> or not 2NN happens?
> 
> chuckle; grated minds (sic) think alike; see my "suspicion" paragraph  in 
> reply to Ashok
> 
> > In particular, 2NN includes this rule from the IETF that servers MUST 
> NOT send a 2NN unless they know the client can accept it.
> 
> FWIW: I don't see that in Eric P's draft.  Still, separate and separable.

I'll respond to this in an epic reply to all of John's 2NN comments, but in short... The draft [2NN] follows the RFC 7238 [7238] precedent of having a Deployment section with no 2119 language:
[[
   Per [12], this document registers the Prefer header ([RFC7240])
   value "contents-of-related".  A client MAY include a "Prefer:
   contents-of-related" header with a request to indicate that the
   client can accept 2NN responses.
]]


[2NN] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00>
[7238] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7238#section-4>
-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 12:30:02 UTC