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

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.



Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead