Subject: [Crisp] a couple of issues with LWZ and XPC

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:27:26 -0400

Just to let everybody know, it appears that both the LWZ and XPC  
drafts will need at least one more spin around the block.

Based on feedback I've received off-line, it would appear that both  
LWZ and XPC need some more descriptive text regarding the intended  
message exchange pattern.  For LWZ, it would appear that the draft is  
not clear enough about the exchange being one UDP packet out, one UDP  
packet in, no session semantics, big desire to avoid fragmentation.   
For XPC, the draft is not clear enough about the response block being  
sent after the request block vs. interleaving request/response chunks.

Milena Caires has pointed out to me that neither XPC and LWZ mention  
which bits are most significant and that both drafts would appear to  
be counter to the convention setup by RFC 1166 (which becomes obvious  
when you look at the example).  This needs to be fixed.

Finally, the SASL example in XPC only shows a one octet length field  
for the SASL data when it suppose to be two octets.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp