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

right. as i remember it (and i may be doing carlo's proposal a great
disservice) the proposal is:

a. at connection time, the client tells the server what new protocols
it knows about.
b. if the server doesn't know about the new protocols, then it uses
the base protocol

if so, we should also ask how this is different than a HTTP Upgrade.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>