RFC Part 1 Core v2: Job N outputs comments

[fmigneault]

Comments placed inline in the PR since it is easier to keep the context this way.

See the details :
Originally posted by @fmigneault in #596 (review)

Most comments are minor formatting.

Other notable comments are about:

• X- prefix for the new N-outputs header, and clarified requiement for the odd "non-array" case still using N=1
• Potential REC for HEAD ../jobs/{outputs} and/or ../jobs/{outputs}/{N}
• Consideration of generic (rather than async-specific) N-output requirements since sync can technically use a job

[pvretano]

@fmigneault thanks for the review ... very much appreciated! I'll try to get to these before the next SWG meeting.

• is X really necessary? We defined the ContentCrs header in features (or was it JSON-FG) and we did not use "X-". I thought that the relevant RFC was updated and it no longer required or even recommended the "X-" ... but I could be wrong. I'll check and update accordingly.
• I do mention using HEAD at the {outputID} and {outputID}/{N} path but I agree I should convert that to a proper recommendation.
• Yeah, I agree about making the N-output requirements more generic ... I was rushing a bit because OGC was waiting on me to kick off the RFC so I took the easiest path to completion ... but I'll circle back and fix as an RFC comment.
• I do mention using HEAD at the {outputID} and {outputID}/{N} path but I agree I should convert those to a recommendation.

[fmigneault]

@pvretano
Technically X- is not necessary (non breaking). The important thing is mostly to be consitent with them across APIs using them. If OGC- is the established prefix, all OGC APIs should reuse it for custom headers. (I'm not aware of all custom headers across existing OGC APIs, just something to consider if you know more)

[pvretano]

@fmigneault Yikes! I am not sure that we are that organized in OGC ... but I'll check ...