Re: Fedora / Memento implementation status

[Martin Klein]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot for sharing this, we are excited to hear about the release of Fedora 5 with Memento support!

The interactions with the resources outlined at:

https://gist.github.com/awoods/201e1f3d0c747710dad33e88d34ad992

look correct to me, following pattern 1.1 of the Memento RFC. It checks all the boxes 302, correct request/response headers, distinct URI-M, etc.

The reason why the validator is not responding properly is its handling of response headers. It expects comma-separated value pairs and currently can not handle headers with the same field-name that are newline-separated ("field-name: field-value" formatting) as you are - correctly - doing it. The validator will need to be updated!

So again, this looks good to me but I invite others on the list to take a closer look and provide feedback.

cheers

Martin

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Herbert Van de Sompel <hvd...@gmail.com> wrote:

hi Andrew,

Thanks for this!

Yes, I think it would be good to post to memento-dev. The LANL team (and others) can then post reactions that are visible to all. Plus, it's nice PR for both Fedora and Memento!

Note that I no longer work at LANL. I am currently in transition and will start a new job at DANS in The Netherlands in January.

Greetings

Herbert

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:46 AM Andrew Woods <awo...@duraspace.org> wrote:

Hello Herbert and Team,

Please let me know if I should rather send this message to memen...@googlegroups.com.

The Fedora project's implementation of the Memento specification is now at a  point where we would once again appreciate your feedback.

Fedora follows the 4.1.1 Datetime Negotiation pattern (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7089#section-4.1.1) . I have captured a gist of walking through the interactions defined in that section:

https://gist.github.com/awoods/201e1f3d0c747710dad33e88d34ad992

We have also used the http://mementoweb.org/tools/validator to verify the Fedora interactions... with somewhat ambiguous results.

As we move towards our next major release [1], we would be very grateful for your input on the correctness of Fedora's implementation of the Memento specification.

If it is helpful, please feel free to inspect the Fedora resource that was tested:

http://54.160.152.19:8080/fcrepo/rest/test

Best regards,

Andrew

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fedora-community/_YS_mL-8Nkc/ekbIVvc8CAAJ

--

Herbert Van de Sompel
https://hvdsomp.info/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==

[Michael Nelson]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Martin Klein wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks a lot for sharing this, we are excited to hear about the release of Fedora 5 with Memento
> support!
> The interactions with the resources outlined at:
>
> https://gist.github.com/awoods/201e1f3d0c747710dad33e88d34ad992
>
> look correct to me, following pattern 1.1 of the Memento RFC. It checks all the boxes 302, correct
> request/response headers, distinct URI-M, etc.
> The reason why the validator is not responding properly is its handling of response headers. It expects
> comma-separated value pairs and currently can not handle headers with the same field-name that are
> newline-separated ("field-name: field-value" formatting) as you are - correctly - doing it. The
> validator will need to be updated!

yes, esp. since "line folding" is now disallowed as per RFC 7230:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.4
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#appendix-A.2

repeating the lines is now the only way to keep otherwise long headers
human-readable.

regards,

Michael

>
> So again, this looks good to me but I invite others on the list to take a closer look and provide
> feedback.
>
> cheers
> Martin
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Herbert Van de Sompel <hvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Andrew,
> Thanks for this!
>
> Yes, I think it would be good to post to memento-dev. The LANL team (and others) can then post
> reactions that are visible to all. Plus, it's nice PR for both Fedora and Memento!
>
> Note that I no longer work at LANL. I am currently in transition and will start a new job at DANS
> in The Netherlands in January.
>
> Greetings
>
> Herbert
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:46 AM Andrew Woods <awo...@duraspace.org> wrote:

> Hello Herbert and Team,Please let me know if I should rather send this message

> to memen...@googlegroups.com.
>
> The Fedora project's implementation of the Memento specification is now at a  point where we
> would once again appreciate your feedback.
>
> Fedora follows the 4.1.1 Datetime Negotiation pattern
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7089#section-4.1.1) . I have captured a gist of walking
> through the interactions defined in that section:
> https://gist.github.com/awoods/201e1f3d0c747710dad33e88d34ad992
>
> We have also used the http://mementoweb.org/tools/validator to verify the Fedora
> interactions... with somewhat ambiguous results.
>
> As we move towards our next major release [1], we would be very grateful for your input on
> the correctness of Fedora's implementation of the Memento specification.
>
> If it is helpful, please feel free to inspect the Fedora resource that was tested:
> http://54.160.152.19:8080/fcrepo/rest/test
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fedora-community/_YS_mL-8Nkc/ekbIVvc8CAAJ
>
>
>
> --
> Herbert Van de Sompel
> https://hvdsomp.info/
> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126
> ==
>

> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

----
Michael L. Nelson m...@cs.odu.edu http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/
Dept of Computer Science, Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA 23529
+1 757 683 6393 +1 757 683 4900 (f)

[Andrew Woods]

Hello All,

The Fedora project's implementation of the Memento specification is now at a point where we would appreciate your feedback.