Re: [Crisp] Last Minute Last Call Comments on lwz-06

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Tue, 29 August 2006 13:49 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GI3xu-0000hI-SV; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:18 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GI3xt-0000h8-B9; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:17 -0400
Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GI3xn-0006Qb-3c; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:17 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:03 -0400 id 015880DC.44F445D0.0000222E
Message-ID: <44F445CC.6090303@hxr.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:00 -0400
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Marcos Sanz/Denic" <sanz@denic.de>
Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Minute Last Call Comments on lwz-06
References: <OF6A9845CF.06B2114E-ONC12571D9.003479B4-C12571D9.0035B4FD@notes.denic.de>
In-Reply-To: <OF6A9845CF.06B2114E-ONC12571D9.003479B4-C12571D9.0035B4FD@notes.denic.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: crisp@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
> Really?
> 
> As we seemed to agree in
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/crisp/current/msg00413.html
> the BEEP reply codes 500/501 refer to the XML of the transport protocol 
> itself, not to the XML of the payload.
> 
> And the only usage for 'vi' type in XPC that I have been able to find is
> 
>    Clients MAY send a block with this type of chunk to a server.  These
>    chunks SHOULD be zero length and servers MUST ignore any data in
>    them.  When a server receives a chunk of this type, it MUST respond
>    with a chunk of this type.  This interchange allows a client to query
>    the version information of a server.
> 
> which doesn't mean that 'vi' must be sent by the server when the 
> IRIS-based XML payload does not match a version the server supports.

Your killin' me, Marcos!  :)

It would be 'oi' in both XPC and LWZ.  The difference between the mail 
message you pointed out and the issue you are talking about are:

  1) I understood what you said, I just won't do what you asked.
    - and -
  2) I don't understand what you said.

-andy


_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
Crisp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp