[Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 22 July 2005 11:42 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvvvW-00039t-1u; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:42:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvvvU-00039o-Lm for rfid@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:42:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04484 for <rfid@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvwPi-0001In-8b for rfid@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:14:03 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F9926C084; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from maya40.nic.fr (maya40.nic.fr [192.134.4.151]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B34826C077; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from batilda.nic.fr (postfix@batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by maya40.nic.fr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id j6MBgduT824519; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by batilda.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4541F16A9D9; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:39 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Scott Barvick <sbarvick@revasystems.com>
Message-ID: <20050722114239.GA23843@nic.fr>
References: <0E03681B885F3B4296B999E34435A16E37344E@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0E03681B885F3B4296B999E34435A16E37344E@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mx2.nic.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
Subject: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary
X-BeenThere: rfid@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Control and Access of Infrastructure for RFID Operations Discussion List <rfid.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rfid>
List-Post: <mailto:rfid@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 06:56:14AM -0400,
 Scott Barvick <sbarvick@revasystems.com> wrote 
 a message of 121 lines which said:

> the protocol processing is layered on top of standard security
> mechanisms as discussed in Section 4.2 of the draft.

Section 4.2 is nice but it just says that TLS MUST be present, not
that it MUST be used, no?

> Therefore, the implementation can safely access fields in payload as
> efficiently as possible.

It seems to me quite contradictory to say (David Husak's message) "We
will use fixed-length encoding because it is faster" and "security is
not an issue, since we use TLS". Surely, TLS processing is much more
costly than XML processing and therefore the cost of XML is
negligible?



_______________________________________________
Rfid mailing list
Rfid@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid