Re: associating constant feature sets wi

The creation of a capability negotiation *protocol* is out of scope for
this group; we are charged with creating a feature registry and
methods for representing those registered features which can be used
by other protocols.

If you are interested in creating or reviewing such a protocol within
the IETF, you should contact the area directors and arrange a BOF on
the topic.
		regards,
				Ted Hardie
				Chair, CONNEG


> 
> I agree with Koen, that a generic or transport independent negotiation
> protocol may have only  limited value. On the other hand,  I would like to
> see a capability negotiation protocol for HTTP. I am not sure whether the
> work should be done in this group or the HTTP group.
> 
> I thought that "delegation" referred to a mechanism for asking one or more
> third parties to provide partial or complete profile information. Partial
> profile information from multiple sources could be aggragated in some way
> to provide a complete profile. Such a third party might be a cache or proxy
> or some other server not normally part of the communication channel. In
> the CC/PP paper there was a notion of "indirect references" which were
> URLs that named profiles with default values that could be superseded by
> a user agent.
> 
> I agree with Graham that we can separate most of the issues of naming
> and representation of feature sets from "transfer". I am very interested
> in an HTTP specific version of the negotiation protocol but I don't have
> a strong preference about where the work takes place.
> 
> Franklin Reynolds
> Nokia Research Center
>