Re: [ogpx] The Urgent Need For Protocol Negotiation (Was: Beyond the monolithic client protocol endpoint)

Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> Mon, 07 December 2009 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <josh@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FBB28C1DF for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:30:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mThmXGQLtcJU for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f201.google.com (mail-iw0-f201.google.com [209.85.223.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BE53A691C for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2949983iwn.32 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.160.130 with SMTP id n2mr406481ibx.23.1260210625148; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20091207001703.GA26539@alinoe.com>
References: <e0b04bba0912051014y1aeea211i2ce3267179c70f1e@mail.gmail.com> <4B1B785A.9000602@cox.net> <e0b04bba0912060911i122d62e9o37a7229a2d742ac@mail.gmail.com> <20091207001703.GA26539@alinoe.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:30:25 -0800
Message-ID: <f72742de0912071030k22cae4d1xd4100ecd823373af@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d3392ba7776f047a27a601
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] The Urgent Need For Protocol Negotiation (Was: Beyond the monolithic client protocol endpoint)
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:30:40 -0000

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:

>
> I'd like to grab this opportunity to recall my proposal for
> client-server protocol negotiation.
>

Am I correct that this represents the previous discussion on the topic?

Carlo's post:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00363.html

Meadhbh's reply:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00362.html

Can you respond to Meadhbh's comments? Dealing with version skew is
addressed at various levels in the protocol drafts already, from
presence/absence of named capabilities to HTTP nuances to LLSD semantic
rules. That's not to say that this is sufficient, but it does appear to
cover a broad spectrum of version skew issues, so identifying those that
aren't covered - or those that could be addressed more explicitly with
numbered versions - would be extremely valuable.

Joshua