W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > February 1999

RE: Use of TELNET for testing protocols

From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <8B57882C41A0D1118F7100805F9F68B50631AA0E@RED-MSG-45>
To: "'michaelm@netsol.com'" <michaelm@netsol.com>, jg@pa.dec.com
Cc: jpalme@dsv.su.se, discuss@apps.ietf.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@bailey.dscga.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 8:50 AM
> To: jg@pa.dec.com
> Cc: michaelm@netsol.com; jg@pa.dec.com; Josh Cohen; jpalme@dsv.su.se;
> discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Use of TELNET for testing protocols
> 
> 
> Jim Gettys said this:
> > Text protocols and telnet debugging have a lower entry 
> cost, but much 
> > higher curve as things get compicated.  Binary protocols 
> tend to have 
> > higher up-front costs (building a bit more infrastructure 
> up front), but 
> > lower difficultly curves, as the complexity of the protocol goes up.
>
definitely an insightful statement.

However, has IMAP or POP had the same problems because its text?
Or, is it just HTTP's loose syntax of optional and ignored stuff
that has cause so much pain?
I havent noticed the same terrible cries in the IMAP/POP world,
but then again, maybe I dont spend enough time in that world
to notice.  Chris ?
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 1999 20:32:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:59 UTC