Subject: [lemonade] WGLC on URLFETCH=BINARY

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:42:35 -0500

This note serves as a Work Group Last Call on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cridland-urlfetch-binary-01.txt

Despite the file name, this is a work group document.

Alexey has provided comments in his message with the Subject "[lemonade]
Comments on draft-cridland-urlfetch-binary-01.txt".  In this message, Alexey
suggests a mode where URLFETCH can return the BODYPARTSTRUCTURE without the
body.   Having heard no discussion for a week, we presume there is consensus
on his comments, which are mostly editorial in nature.  I apologize that I
am currently disconnected and cannot include a link to this message.
However, it is in the archives.

Work Group Last Call closes 25 February 2008

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:27:49 +0200

Hi Eric,

Typo in chapter 4, below the first example:
"Note that the data here does not contain a NUL octet, therefore a
   literla - not literal8 - syntax has been used."
literla -> literal

Formal syntax, chapter 5:
capability       =/ "URLAUTH=BINARY"
shouldn't this be "URLFETCH=BINARY"?

Thanks Dave!

Best regards: Zoltán Ördögh
E-mail: zoltan dot ordogh at nokia dot com
Phone: +358 50 386 0566

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Eric Burger
>Sent: 15 February, 2008 19:43
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lemonade] WGLC on URLFETCH=BINARY
>
>Alexey has provided comments in his message with the Subject 
>"[lemonade] Comments on 
>draft-cridland-urlfetch-binary-01.txt".  In this message, 
>Alexey suggests a mode where URLFETCH can return the 
>BODYPARTSTRUCTURE without the
>on his comments, which are mostly editorial in nature.  I 
>apologize that I am currently disconnected and cannot include 
>a link to this message.
>Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, 
>may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its 
>subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be 
>confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally 
>privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the 
>individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the 
>intended recipient, and have received this message in error, 
>please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:36:14 +0000

On Fri Feb 15 17:42:35 2008, Eric Burger wrote:
> "[lemonade]
> body.

I've not seen consensus either way on this. I note that Ken told me  
(via XMPP) that he doesn't care either way, and the primary reason  
it's not present is that it'd require substantial reworking of the  
document.

One important point to note here is that the current format is,  
approximately:

* URLFETCH 1*(descriptive-blob data-or-NIL)

Allowing clients to request that the data isn't sent would mean  
either changing this, or doing something like setting the data to  
NIL. I vaguely prefer the latter.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:44:23 +0000

>shouldn't this be "URLFETCH=BINARY"?
IMHO, despite the draft name it should be URLAUTH=BINARY, because it 
extends URLAUTH extension.
But I can't say I care that much either way.