[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions

Marshall Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:32:43 -0700


> This conversation makes me wonder why we are proposing to change
> 'REQ' and 'RSP' to 'MSG', 'RPY', 'ANS', 'NULL' and 'ERR'-- did I miss
> an important interchange at the IETF meeting?

the reason why s/REQ/MSG/g and s/RSP/RPY/g is because a lot of folks were
associating rpc-like semantics with beep. a casual reading of the framework
makes clear that this isn't what the framework is about. nonetheless, i'd
like to save several hours over the next year or so having to re-explain
that. with MSG and RPY, it is unlikely that people will jump the gun to
think rpc.

/mtr