Subject: RE: [Simple] New event lists draft

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:06:04 -0600

Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> In section 3.2 (Event Header Parameters) the wording implies that the 
> id= parameter will be passed thru to subscriptions for elements in a 
> list. But this is probably a bad thing.

Good catch. This is an oversight on my part. I certainly didn't
intend to say that the "id" parameter must be passed through.

> Shouldn't the event list server have the option to decide 
> when or if to 
> associate event ids with the subscriptions it generates?

In fact, how the resource list server chooses to service
these back-end subscriptions is intended to be largely a
matter of implementation. You'll notice that, except for
security considerations, there is no *normative* language
that describes a formal relationship between the list
subscriptions and any downstream subscriptions the RLS
might create to service the list subscriptions. I've
already received feedback that the current draft doesn't
make this point very well, and I'll try to make this
clearer in the next version of the document.

Thanks for taking the time to look over the document.

/a
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple