Subject: Re: [BEEPwg] Channel response serialization

From: Greg Weber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:43:50 -0400 (EDT)

Would it be possible to use this beep extension mechanism
to negotiate the ability to send one-way messages (messages
that do not have any replies)?

Greg  [new to beep...]

> 
> > OK. I don't want to rat-hole on this so: do I understand correctly that
> you
> > are proposing to amend the RFC to make serialization on a channel
> optional?
> 
> no. what i'm proposing is that we use beep's extension mechanism (called
> "features") and write a new document that talks defines a feature that
> removes the same-order property. rfc3080 doesn't change. presumably a new
> rfc gets published that describes how something implementing rfc3080 can
> also say that it does the new thing too.
> 
> /mtr
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BEEPwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg
> 

_______________________________________________
BEEPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

---

From: Jered Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Aug 2002 16:28:07 -0400

> that do not have any replies)?

Certainly.  Is there some situation when this would be significantly
better than MSG/NUL exchanges for you?

--Jered

---

From: Greg Weber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:57:43 -0400 (EDT)

> better than MSG/NUL exchanges for you?

I was thinking of performance/traffic.  Lack of support for
one-way messages despite reliable transport seems to be often 
cited in support of work similar to beep, e.g.
  draft-hessing-p2p-messaging-00.txt.

Greg

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:13:38 -0700

>   draft-hessing-p2p-messaging-00.txt.

Here's my hipshot response to concerns about network overhead in BEEP: 
we want tuning profiles for compression protocols.  I can imagine a 
compression protocol that squeezes a lot of bytes out of the BEEP 
header and trailer, as well as shaving some off the encodings of the 
management profile messages.

Since I don't have a deep compelling need to see such protocols 
deployed, I'm not agitating loudly to contribute to their drafting.  
You want to do that?  Go for it.  I will wait for you here.

--james