- From: Mark Needleman - DRA <mneedlem@dra.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:26:08 -0600 (CST)
- To: Robert Waldstein <wald@library.ho.lucent.com>
- cc: www-zig@w3.org
Bob we would need to think a little carefully about some of this buffer sizes - what happens if the server sends more not less than the client can handle services - we sould need some new error mechanisms (perhaps just diagnostics) to indicate the service is not supported protocol version - again there are some things you can do in v3 but not in v2 do the apdu's are laid out a bit differently - but gain diagnostics could handle that authenitcation needs to be dealt with but this could be an interesting discussion - but for the purposes you want to do away with init - doesnt encapsulation handle a lot of what you are trying to do? mark On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Robert Waldstein wrote: > > > > how would you propose that some of the negotiation about buffer sizes and > > services supported (plus protocol version) be handled if there is no init > > - Im not necessarily opposed to this - just interested in how you see > > those types of things being handled > > - buffer sizes: do alot of this negotiation in HTTP? I just wouldn't > bother, you would get what you asked for or as much as I was willing > to give you. > > - services: this actually always bothered me. > What does a server do now with a client that ignores > the option bits? Oh yes - if good OSI targets they shut down cause > it is a "bad" client. > > - protocol version: actually this is interesting. But so far I don't think > we use it? That is, PDUs aren't laid out differently in the different > versions - they just have new features added. If we had laid out the > PDUs differently this would be a serious problem; but the feature issue > I answer like the above; that is, what do the servers do now when > something is requested/used that they don't know or support. > > - authentication (you didn't mention it but someone will): I never liked > this anyway. I would think most servers have something they wish could > be free (e.g. advertising their service, test DBs, etc). My server > certainly has DBs with different level of needed authentication. So > yes, if you need authentication do access control. > THis I think people will object to - could also solve this be having > and agreed upon otherInfo item for access control. > > bob waldstein wald@lucent.com >
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 10:26:12 UTC