On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]>wrote:
> Yes, now I remember that discussion. But isn't the current wording > misleading? I think the server only returns an IRD with a 300 status if > the client sends a GET request rather than a POST request. > The way I read RFC2616, the 300 status code can be returned for either a GET or a POST. We'd be happy to find a better wording. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Rich > > - Wendy > > > From: Richard Alimi <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, July 19, 2013 03:31 > To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> > Cc: alto <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [alto] Cost-type names > > >> If there is more than one Cost Type in this list, >> then the ALTO Server SHOULD return an IRD to the client >> to lead it towards the URIs for the corresponding Cost Maps. >> >> I don't understand what that means. Can anyone explain it? >> > > This means that the ALTO Server may respond with an Multiple Choices (300) > status code with the body containing an IRD. If I recall correctly, the > explicit statement about the HTTP 300 status code was removed after a > discussion about there being too strong of a coupling between ALTO and the > HTTP layers. I know the WG has gone back and forth over appropriate > wording for this particular issue in the past. > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
