IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] sample implementation of my most recent proposal posted

"Shelby Moore" <shelby@coolpage.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <shelby@coolpage.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793693A68C7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PfnB47J+WzzV for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www2.webmail.pair.com (www2.webmail.pair.com [66.39.3.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 58BFB3A67BE for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 33686 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Aug 2010 04:07:14 -0000
Received: from 121.97.54.174 ([121.97.54.174]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user shelby@coolpage.com) by sm.webmail.pair.com with HTTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:07:14 -0400
Message-ID: <c48c8e2d75df23d8b60529a37387e2f1.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:07:14 -0400
From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] sample implementation of my most recent proposal posted
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: shelby@coolpage.com
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:06:47 -0000

> It turns out there is one gotcha I ran into
> -- the extension data needs to be fragmentable since it could be
> arbitrarily long, but that leads to some implementation complexities
> that I did not address in this sample code

I warned you of that and gave you the solution:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03854.html

If you make the fragmentation frame semantically agnostic, then you can
put anything in it. Then you can just follow with a frame with a payload
of extension data (under my proposal you would do that when the payload is
larger than some constant, I suggested 253 but could be any chosen value,
even negotiated if you want).

Also the implementation for my proposal would be much simpler and better
structure for OOP.

> There is also a bit of awkwardness regarding per-message metadata
> and per-frame metadata

Yes I warned you about conflating the message semantic layer with the
fragmentation-frame layer. See my link above for the elegant solution.

Oh well. Good luck. Maybe you will figure it out.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email