At 04:04 PM 13/06/01 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
But that doesn't answer my question. Are you planning on submitting
draft-elson-opes-icap-01.txt to the RFC editor as a representation of
the iCAP protocol?
No. We are currently editing that draft to produce a new version. This new
version will (of course) be sent around a number of places before we sent
it (possibly corrected after this review) to the RFC editor. I believe that
ths will be a fair representation of the iCAP protocol, as implemented.
If you are, then please identify what versions of
what software have been implemented according to that specification, because
the last time I checked it was impossible for that specification to be
implemented as written.
Indeed. I believe this is the source of our (mutual) confusion.
The whole point of this new draft is precisely to fix the document
according to what we and others learnt on implementation. The document is
intended to document iCAP "as implemented". As I said in my previous mail,
we also hope to provide reference code which conforms to this.
What I am saying is: fix the specification first. I don't want you to
include all the wild ideas, just the fixes that make it possible for
independent interoperable implementations to exist based on the specification
and not based on reverse-engineering the behavior of your software.
That's exactly what we're doing: fixing the document. There are no major
functional additions and we hope a lot more clarity on some of the issues
raised recently like adherence / dependance on HTTP, security, etc. All of
the additions are the result of review on mailing lists or implementation
experience - none of them are new.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615
Scorpius 2 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 LR Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------