Re: draft-ietf-ohto-ccpp-exchange-00

At 02:16 PM 5/12/00 -0400, Hidetaka Ohto wrote:
> > Finally, concerning the proposed use of "Profile-diff" headers.  To me,
> > this is mixing data formats with the protocol specification.  The idea of
> > expressing differences from some common feature set is, I think, a format
> > issue, and the CC/PP format is being designed to address this.  As such, I
> > don't think it should be necessary to distinguish between "profile" and
> > "profile-diff".
>
> > Here is one possible example approach:
> >     Profile-URI: <client-profile-URI>
> >     Profile-RDF: <RDF-expression>
> >     Profile-RDF: <RDF-expression>
> >      :
> >     Profile-RDF: <RDF-expression>
>
>In your possible example, you still distinguished the
>list of URIs(Profile-URI) from the list of RDF expressions(Profile-RDF).
>One of the main functions of "Profile" and "Profile-Diff" in the draft
>is the same as those of Profile-URI and Profile-RDF.
>
>Basically I am not sure the difference between them.

The sole purpose of Profile-URI in my proposal is to distinguish the "entry 
point" into the RDF graph:  i.e. the resource that is the root of the graph 
describing the properties supplied.  As such, it would specify a *single* 
URI, not a list.

>My take on your opinion is that CC/PP descriptions should describe their
>relationship (such as overriding/combining rules) by themselves as much as
>possible.

Yes, that's my opinion.

>At the time I made the CCPPEX draft, CCPP itself does not have
>precedence rules explicitly, therefore CCPPEX needed to have the function.
>I agree there will be many details that are resolved as the CC/PP format
>definition is firmed up.

I understand ... my comments were made in light of an assumption that CC/PP 
would deal with these issues.  (And the fact that I believe that it should 
not be the protocol's responsibility to contain structural information 
about the capability profile.)

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 06:49:04 UTC