VTP 2.0 Proposed Recommendation: Request for Comments
Public discussion page for the IVOA VTP 2.0 Proposed Recommendation.
The latest version of the VTP Specification can be found at:
Reference Interoperable Implementations
Comments from the IVOA Community and TCG members during RFC period: 2016-05-31 - 2016-07-16
Comments from TCG members during the TCG Review Period: 2016-05-31 - 2016-07-16
WG chairs or vice chairs must read the Document, provide comments if any and formally indicate if they approve or do not approve of the Standard.
IG chairs or vice chairs are also encouraged to do the same, although their inputs are not compulsory.
TCG Chair & Vice Chair ( _Matthew Graham, Pat Dowler )
Applications Working Group ( _Pierre Fernique, Tom Donaldson )
Data Access Layer Working Group ( François Bonnarel, Marco Molinaro )
Data Model Working Group ( _Mark Cresitello-Dittmar, Laurent Michel )
Grid & Web Services Working Group ( Brian Major, Giuliano Taffoni )
Registry Working Group ( _Markus Demleitner, Theresa Dower )
Sect. 6.1f use the term IVORN, which was deemed hopelessly ambiguous
during the creation of Identifiers 2.0 (which had attempted to properly
define it). So, we've deprecated it -- just call it IVOA Identifier or
IVOID and be done with it (*).
Also in 6.1, you say "should normally include a timezone". You've
probably seen the discussions about timestamp fromats in the context of
UWS and
DALI -- perhaps you could prevent future inconsistencies with
the rest of the VO by saying "This [time and date] should include a
``Z'' timezone indicator. If the timezone indicator is missing, clients
should assume UTC. The use of other timezone indicators (and, hence,
timezones) is severely discouraged." (and similar in the following
sections).
Still in 6.1, the sample document references a non IVOA-namespace and
schema location. I realize it's probably too late to change the
namespace. Perhaps you could still comment on this and at least use the
ivoa.net schema location (
http://ivoa.net/xml/Transport-v1.1.xsd, I
think)?
I'm not terribly happy about 9.2, as the authentication scheme proposed
isn't mentioned in the SSO document that we're reviewing almost
simulataneously. If this wasn't advertised as "finished tech just being
codified", I'd say it's a bit embarrassing to, in effect, have conflicting
recommendations (SSO: "Auth schemes approved are..."; VTP: "...something
we don't particularly care about."). Things being what they are: if
this is deployed and implemented, so be it (except that then I think you
should say what XML signature scheme actually is used). If it's not,
however, can't you just put in "to be specified in 2.1"? [All this
leaves aside the question of what kind of security is achieved by the
protocol proposed -- over a plain TCP connection with all its
susceptability to eavesdropping and hijacking, that's probably limited
in the first place].
Typos and similar
p. 4 "...set of brokers which subscribe/r/ to each other's" (*)
"The Transport Protocol, hereafter VTP" -- perhaps actually put a
"VOEvent" in front of "Transport" so the acronym matches? (*)
Provided at least the points marked with (*) are somehow addressed, we
approve.
Semantics Working Group ( _Mireille Louys, Alberto Accomazzi )
Education Interest Group ( _Massimo Ramella, Sudhanshu Barway )
Time Domain Interest Group ( _John Swinbank, Dave Morris )
Data Curation & Preservation Interest Group ( Françoise Genova )
Operations Interest Group ( _Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor )
Knowledge Discovery Interest Group ( Kaï Polsterer )
Theory Interest Group ( _Carlos Rodrigo )
Standards and Processes Committee ( Françoise Genova)