Subject: RE: HTTP auxiliary parts and OCP Core

From: "Martin Stecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:24:03 +0100

> 
> My current preference is to say that from OCP point of view "auxiliary
> data" is "data" and absolutely all Core mechanisms apply "as is". 

Mine as well.

> And
> then add that the OPES processor MAY terminate a transaction if
> adapted flow includes an auxiliary part.

HTTP draft says in section 2.2:

   An OPES processor MUST NOT send parts that are not listed as
   "original" in the negotiated profile. An callout server MUST NOT send
   parts that are not listed as "adapted" in the negotiated profile.  An
   OCP agent receiving an not-listed part MUST terminate the transaction
   with an error.

Beside that we used a MUST rather than MAY, is there something missing in the current draft that needs to be added?

Regards
Martin

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:59 -0700 (MST)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Martin Stecher wrote:

> > And then add that the OPES processor MAY terminate a transaction
> > if adapted flow includes an auxiliary part.
>
> Beside that we used a MUST rather than MAY, is there something
> missing in the current draft that needs to be added?

Let's keep a MUST there. I am convinced by the rationale in the draft
(did I write it?) :-).

Obviously, I overlooked the requirement you quote when looking for it.
I would suggest to move all part-specific after-negotiation
requirements from Section 2.2's introduction to Section 2.2.1 Profile
Parts.

Alex.