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

>therefore the cost of XML is negligible?

Cost has several dimensions, not just cpu.
For instance, memory utilization can also be a significant factor.

I have no idea how XML vs. TLS stack up on that front.
But we should be clear when we're discussing such things we clearly
understand what we're referring to, and not lumping disparate things
together under one jambalaya umbrella.

	- Howard

-----Original Message-----
From: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:43 AM
To: Scott Barvick
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
Subject: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary

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

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