Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 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
November.
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 <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
