Re: maximum size of packets from client to server

[der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG>]

>> The "number of different people" that you refer to is 1.
> I was referring to an earlier email in the thread where someone made
> a comment about three different interpretations from three different
> people.

That would have been me.  It's recent enough to still be in my mail
history trail; here's the quote:

| I thought it was obvious, but here we have three people thinking of
| three different interpretations, so it clearly isn't as obvious as I
| thought.

The three were:

- Thomas, earlier in this thread, saying "I thought those extra fields
   were for confirmation purposes and didn't give it a second thought".
   (You mentioned this one too.)
- You, speculating that "the server is allowed to further modify them
   to suit its own requirements".
- Me, taking the OPEN_CONFIRMATION values as being the values for the
   confirmer->opener direction, with the values in the OPEN packet
   being just for the opener->confirmer direction.

And, denis, even if, as you wrote, "Thomas is a newbie who understood
the concept the instant it was explained", Peter's point that the spec
is unclear is still valid: the spec's wording has provoked three
incompatible interpretations from three different people, indicating
(to me at least) that the spec is unclear enough to need fixing.  How
those people react to having other interpretations presented to them is
irrelevant to this point.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B