[BEEPwg] Trouble with TLS and transport mappings

Jered Floyd jered@permabit.com
20 Nov 2001 16:55:17 -0500


>    Consider the case in which several frames (but on the final frame)
>    of a request have been sent on channel 1, and the same peer wishes
>    to request TLS in a piggybacked message on channel 0. Should this
>    be interpreted to mean:
> 
>       a) A BEEP peer must not sent a "ready" element until there are
>          no partially-sent messages on any channel, or
> 
>       b) A BEEP peer should not consider partially-received messages
>          to be pending replies?
> 
>    I greatly prefer the former interpretation, but I'm not sure this
>    is correct.

Err; strike that; I greatly prefer the latter interpretation because
the former is quite obnoxious to implement, but I can't find strong
support for either interpretation.

--jered