Re: LDP agenda for 8 September 2014

Hi John,

On 08/09/14 14:07, John Arwe wrote:
>> recommendation, since it contradicts a resolution taken on April:
> Sergio, what's the nature of the conflict you see?
> When I re-read the resolution, I think the spec implements it.
> Or are you saying that there's a conflict baked into that resolution?

The issue was closed with a resolution to keep as it was. I think I said 
I could live wit it, but now I'm not completely sure.

>> Sec. and Sec. 4.2.6.
> (sic, not 4.2.6, for anyone else checking references) governs
> "request failed because [describedby: link to constraints] were violated".
> governs "server created a LDP-NR as requested [201] *and* btw it
> also created an associated LDP-RS [describedby: link to LDP-RS]"

But it also says " The same Link header may be provided on other 
responses". In Marmotta we decided to include it for all responses. And 
there the conflict appears. Maybe we should reconsider that.

> Since a single request cannot both succeed and fail, even if someone were
> to convince me that at most one describedby link is allowed on any
> resource (which would be an uphill climb), I'm not seeing a conflict here.

Well, besides the practical issue of not been able to get the associated 
LDP-RS, there is the issue about using describedby with two different 

Let's talk about it in the call.


Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925

Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 14:02:31 UTC