Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)

Andrew Newton wrote:

>> 3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
>>     various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?

> TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP.

But those are the (complex) protocols for more serious tasks
than only "whois" queries, updates / confidential data / etc.

If LWZ would allow TCP all its "size considerations" would be
harmless.  I never tried / considered "whois" over UDP so far.

> for very short and quick answers (and lots of them, such as
> domain availability checks) UDP is better.

Yes, but that's not the application I'm interested in.  It's
fine that UDP is supported for those who want short and quick
answers, selling domains or whatever they do.

> Don't know what you mean by tricks, but the deflation is
> optional.

What I meant is that clients can signal the maximum response
size they can handle, and they can signal support for deflated
responses.  Based on that info servers then either send what
the client wanted, or indicate which size would be required.

IMO that's "tricky", making the best of UDP that's possible.
But "just use TCP" would be simpler.

 [salt and md5]
> just an example extension.  Perhaps it would be clearer if
> the example just had text content saying "example extension".

No, it's fine after Marcos told me that it's explained in 3981
section 4.4.  Maybe add the info, that the content of the "bag"
is some opaque data the client got before from another server -
if I now understod it correctly.

Frank

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