[BXXPwg] Draft Minutes of last week's meeting

Greg Hudson ghudson@MIT.EDU
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:26:43 -0400


> it's pretty clear that if you can cut in half the number of
> round-trips, you can dramatically reduce the time it takes before
> you get to do useful work, regardless of what the hosts are. and
> that's why i like piggybacks.

I agree.  But nested XML piggybaks don't help non-XML-using profiles,
and if nested XML for this purpose doesn't sit well with current XML
implementations, it seems to partially defeat the purpose of using XML
in BEEP.

What happens in the current spec if a sender is optimistic about
channel creation, and just blasts out the first few requests (up to
the minimum 4K window) after sending the channel creation requests on
channel 0?  Section 2.2.1.1 of the framework document says the session
is terminated if a frame has an "invalid" channel number, but doesn't
say whether that means the channel isn't in the specified range or
whether that could also mean the channel isn't open.

Perhaps the spec could be amended to say that request frames are
silently discarded if they refer to non-open channels, and then there
wouldn't be an RTT penalty associated with opening a channel and
making a request.  That would work for non-XML-using profiles and
doesn't require any ugliness associated with nested XML.