Subject: Re: [alto] Draft notes posted

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:17:52 -0400

Hi Enrico,

Sorry for the delay on replying to this, but looking through the notes I see:

"Issue: should the protocol split a server query response into a
simple server list and a separate server capabilities list? Jon:
suggests to keep a single response, in the ALTO document (as opposed
to mixing in some HTTP headers)."

I believe this was in response to protocol versioning.  In particular,
the question to the WG was concerning keeping the version number in
ALTO Client-Server protocol vs. putting the version number "below" the
ALTO Client-Server protocol such as in HTTP headers or the discovery
protocol.

I believe Jon's response (please correct me if I am wrong) was to keep
the current approach of having the version number communicated within
the ALTO client-server protocol itself.

Rich

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Enrico Marocco
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> draft notes from last week's interim meeting are now online at:
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/trac/wiki/Interim20100616
>
> Please take a look and send us any comments or amendments.
>
> --
> Ciao,
> Enrico
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:04:57 +0200

Actually I also seem to remember Jon commenting about keeping protocol
versioning out of the HTTP header. I've put a comment in the minutes, as
I can't find anything more specific in the raw notes nor have the time
to listen at the recording. If someone has accurate recall of the
discussion or wants to check the audio, feel free to suggest specific
changes.

Enrico