Subject: Re: Heirarchical error codes

From: "Frank Dawson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:55:39 -0500

On Friday, March 19, 1999 10:56 AM, Rob Earhart wrote, in part:

>  Almost; I'd rather see both simply send capability lists when the
>connection is initialized.  For instance, at session startup, one might
>see
>
>  C: * CAPABILITY CAP XMLCAL
>  S: * CAPABILITY CAP SASL ("KERBEROS_V4" "GSSAPI" "DIGEST-MD5") TLS
>
>(using * instead of a normal tag because these aren't commands; they're
>information which doesn't require a reply.)
>
>  The server probably shouldn't restrict its list based on what it gets
>from the client; it's useful to see everything the server's capable of.
>After this exchange, both sides know what the other's capable of dealing
>with, and can restrict what they speak to the subset of the capabilities
>they know about for which the other side has announced support.

This seems like unnecessary bits-on-the-wire for the CUA. Shouldn't the CUA
just query the CS and respond accordingly?

What scenario did you have in mind that necessitated the CUA to also specify
it's capabilities? Just because I have a capability doesn't mean that in a
given session instance that I am going to use it. So what good is it to the
CS for the CUA to provide this input?

Can you give us an example?

- - Frank

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:44:43 +0000

Frank Dawson wrote:

> it's capabilities?

"I cannot render non-Latin1 text"?

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/