Re: ACTION-359: Add proposal for ISSUE-161 to allow an indicator of non-compliance within the tracking status value for testing and deployment

Hi Roy,

Following up from last week's discussion. What's the rationale for the 
additional requirements? If the implementation is non-compliant, 
incomplete, testing, whatever, then why not let that be the case without 
additional requirements? Also, doesn't it create a circular problem with 
trying to indicate non-compliance in a compliant way? Especially if the 
non-compliance includes not providing those elements?

/An origin server that sends ! as a tracking status value must provide, 
in the corresponding tracking status representation, a valid first-party 
member; the origin server must also provide policy and control members 
if such information is not directly obtainable by performing a retrieval 
action on the first-party resource(s)./

Moreover, can we change the name to something like "non-standard" rather 
than "non-compliant," since if they are providing this flag according to 
the spec then they are in fact compliant with the spec.

And I propose the following description of the "!" value: /The origin 
server is unable or unwilling to claim that the designated resource 
conforms to [TRACKING-COMPLIANCE]. The server MAY provide additional 
details through a link in //_policy_//./


On 1/30/13 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> As discussed during today's call, I have added a proposal for the
> "!" tracking status value to the TPE editors' draft, which completes
> my ACTION-359 for ISSUE-161.
> ....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 16:44:59 UTC