Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
    >> I notice that we have no protocol versions in GRASP: I'm not sure we
    >> need them though, as for the ASA side of things, we ought to discover
    >> an ASA that speaks the appropriate version.

    > Yes, objectives have unique strings as names so versioning them is
    > easy.

    >> > Note that in a negotiotion session, we can in fact send M_END with >
    >> option O_DECLINE and an error string at any time.
    >> Yes, I realized that we could do this for M_REQ_NEG.
    >> > You are completely correct that this should be specified.
    >> >> I would rather (3), including the errant session-id.
    >> Do you have a preference?

    > I'm still mulling it over. I will definitely put this on the issues
    > list for the end of WGLC. Sheng is concerned that we haven't had enough
    > comment on the WG list.

It's true, and this is one of the problems with design-team lists.

For the benefit of the WG list, my opinion is that we need two revisions of
grasp before it can advance.  I think that this can happen by the end of

I'm happy if we want to publish at this point, knowing that we will revise
the document within a year, once we have a few more ASAs defined.
Otherwise, I feel that there are unknown issues that won't become known
(unknown unknowns..) until some ASAs do their thing.

I found using CBOR for the encoding make life REALLY REALLY easy.
(I used libcbor with C++ and cbor.gem with ruby).  Not, I only implemented
a very simple ASA.

I've done protocols in XML and the like, and even with sophisticated XML
library, it was never as easy as CBOR.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Anima mailing list

Reply via email to