Hi Laurent, The RFC is authoritative. If you read the section "Detecting ZMTP 1.0 and 2.0 Peers" you will see what is happening.
-Pieter On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > It looks like there are differences between the ZMTP 3 RFC23 ws libzmq > master implementation. My test is the same case than the "worked example" of > the RFC: > > "A DEALER client connects to a ROUTER server. Both client and server are > running ZMTP and the implementation has backwards compatibility detection. > The peers will use the NULL security mechanism to talk to each other." > > "The client sends a partial greeting (11 octets) " : I receive only the 10 > first bytes,which are the signature, but not the major version as expected. > I receive next a 97 bytes message (The first byte is the major version). In > the RFC, this supposed to be two different messages or frames (first one > should end with the filler): > > 3 0 NULL 0 0 4 41 5 READY 11 > Socket-Type 0 0 0 6 DEALER 8 Identity 0 0 0 0 > M m mecha as-server filler flags size Cmd name Prop Name Prop > Val Prop Name Prop Val > 0 1 2-21 22 23-53 54 55 56-61 62-73 > 74-83 84-92 93-96 > 10 11 12-31 32 33-63 64 > > This raises a few questions : > > I have not and won't test the version negotiation. does it work ? > test_stream.cpp works in conformance with what I have monitored. What is the > baseline, the RFC or the implementation ? > > Cheers, > > > Laurent > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
