[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Additional comments about resolution draft 09
Wil, Thanks, this is excellent, highly detailed
feedback – exactly what we need right now. I am travelling this week but
know that Gabe and others are also engaged in a detailed review right now. Once
their comments are in, the editors will collate and start assembling WD10. I won't be on Friday's call but I'm hoping
that a number of these issues can get discussed then in prep for WD10. Please keep posting anything else you notice/suggest
changes on in WD09. =Drummond From: Tan, William
[mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz] Hi, More comments following a second reading of the draft: 1. Section 6.7 confuses me – rule #1 says that if
application/xrd+xml is specified, the proxy MAY elect to perform local
resolution. But it has the choice of not performing this step? My understanding
is that the proxy should always perform local resolution to obtain the XRD for
the resource, depending on the Accept header, decides what to do next. Based on
that, it goes like: Step 1 – perform local resolution to obtain the XRD
for the QXRI. If failed, return 404. Step 2 – If application/xrd+xml is specified, return
the XRD. (Else, proceed to next step) Step 3 – If other content type is specified in the
Accept header, try to locate an SEP and return it. (If not found, proceed to
next step) Step 4 – Try to locate a redirect URI and return 302
if found. Otherwise, return 404. 2. Section 6.3 point #7 says that the proxy resolution
server should follow XRI redirects. I think this should be split into two
cases, where client is XRI-aware (presence of Accept: application/xrd+*) and in
the case of non XRI-aware client. In the former case, if XRI redirect was
followed, the chain of XRIDescriptor’s would be different from the
authority segment of the original QXRI, thereby confusing clients. So, the
proxy MUST/SHOULD return the XRD terminating at the redirection instruction. In
the latter case, the proxy SHOULD of course process the XRI redirect on behalf
of the client. 3. Minor editorial: Section 6.4 Line 1093 – “If
a URI meets this test but the domain name is less than 4. I think we should make a recommendation that the
<Query> element be returned in the same form as the query on the GET
request. This would facilitate the client when checking the returned response
(this would be a SHOULD). However, the client SHOULD be able to do a
case-insensitive match, and possibly differences in percent encoding. /5. If there is no space for an error message in an XRD, how
is a server going to communicate an error condition back to the client. I
understand that an XRD is not meant for human consumption, but it may make
sense to differentiate between “I can’t connect to the authority
resolution endpoint” and “I know nothing about the community root
(+galaxy)”. 6. Section 5.3, point #3 says that if no XRD is available to
describe the identified resource, return 404. Should it not return a 406 when
an Accept header cannot be fulfilled as specified by RFC2616? wil. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]