Re: [Rats] New Version Notification for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type-00.txt

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

👍

From: Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 19 July 2022 at 21:04
To: Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>, Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>, Birkholz, Henk <[e-mail]>, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] New Version Notification for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type-00.txt
It may be worth adding an informational reference to RFC4151 for the tag URIs in the examples. Maybe add this to the sentence at the end of section 4:


“In both cases, a tag URI [RFC4151] identifying the profile is carried as an explicit parameter.”


From: RATS <[e-mail]> on behalf of Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 at 4:25 PM
To: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>, "Birkholz, Henk" <[e-mail]>, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] New Version Notification for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type-00.txt

Thanks very much Dave; this is now tracked in https://github.com/thomas-fossati/draft-eat-mt/issues/7

Cheers, t

From: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 18 July 2022 at 20:38
To: Birkholz, Henk <[e-mail]>, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>, Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type-00.txt
Thanks for submitting this draft.  I think the WG should adopt it as a WG document.

I have reviewed it, and used it in the latest draft-ietf-teep-protocol draft (which during the last RATS meeting I said I would do).

I have just one wording suggestion.  In section 3 it says:

> The media types defined in this document include an optional profile

> parameter that can be used to mirror the eat_profile claim of the

> transported EAT.  Exposing the EAT profile at the API layer allows

> API routers to dispatch payloads directly to the profile-specific
> processor without having to snoop into the request bodies.

That is of course true, but the justification can be even stronger by pointing out that it also allows use when the payload is not present in the message, such as in an Accept header (and indeed section 4 shows that).

Indeed, the TEEP protocol uses it in both Content-Type and Accept, just like in section 4.

Dave
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ RATS mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.