[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: HTTP auxiliary parts and OCP Core
> 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.
> 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?