Re: LDPR Interaction Model on Create

Attempting to move this off of the comments list and onto the WG mailing 
list, given that the former has extra tracking hence is not intended for 
"long" discussions.  public-comments is more for comments from those 
outside the WG, and where we try to get down to problem-solution-ok 
triples.  We discuss proposed responses along with internal WG stuff 
(still public, just less tracked by automation for document transitions) 
on public-ldp (no -comments) and in meetings.  Once we have a consensus 
proposal we can use public-comments.

I don't think your proposal to list the prohibitions is a good idea, for 
several reasons:
1:  It was never the intent IMO to *prohibit* all LDPC behaviors, it was 
the intent to say that the client guarantee is that it's an LDPR, and 
therefore (like any LDPR) it might have additional non-standard behaviors 
(including some LDPC behaviors).  If we prohibit, we can't un-prohibit 
later and remain compatible.
2:  Listing the prohibitions means recapping all LDPC MUSTs in a single 
place, inverting them, and keeping that up to date as the rest of the spec 
changes.  People are horrible at making that model work over time.

If a middle ground works for you, like listing all the current LDPC-Musts 
that client is not guaranteed to get with an LDPR interaction model 
*informatively* along with a statement saying that list might be 
incomplete, I might go for that - I do have sympathy for spec readers in 
addition to editors.


Best Regards, John

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