Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima