Hi Wendy, and Rich, If we apply the principle that media-type in an IRD entry is correct, then there are two cases for an unfiltered cost map:
A single cost-type in "cost-type-names" of an unfiltered cost map, then the IRD of a media type of costmap entry is correct. If multiple, then the "correct" media-type is IRD. I am fine with either way, but not multiple cost-type-names, but a media type of costmap. Any comments? Richard On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]>wrote: > Ah! I see my mistake: I didn't realize that section -- {10.1.2.4} -- > only applied to full cost maps. > > But since we've taken out the "OPTIONS" example, why not just say that for > a full cost-map, the "cost-type-names" capability can only have a single > entry? That is, replace that whole paragraph with just: > > cost-type-names: The name of the one and only Cost Type returned by this > unfiltered cost-map service. Note that the value must be a JSON array > containing a single string. > > > Period. Anything more just creates confusion. > > - Wendy Roome > > From: Richard Alimi <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, July 19, 2013 23:27 > > To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> > Cc: alto <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [alto] Cost-type names > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
