A ha, I understand your complaint, thank you! This is an error in the spec
and deserves an erratum. The correct interpretation is to send an empty
Confirm L. The text of the spec should probably say "Change R and non-empty
Confirm L options MUST NOT be sent ...".
Eddie
Gerrit Renker wrote:
Thanks for the explanation Eddie.
I don't think this jump is "paradox." DCCP's partner is asking to
negotiate a non-negotiable feature, so IT doesn't think the feature is
non-negotiable! (Otherwise it wouldn't have started the negotiation.) We
send an empty Confirm to slap it and tell it to get with the program.
The pseudocode in section 6.6.2 indicates that an endpoint receiving an
empty Confirm simply gives up the negotiation without changing the value.
This is what we want to happen.
Hm, the paradox (and that is what I was trying to raise) is in 6.3.2:
"Change R and Confirm L options MUST NOT be sent for non-negotiable
features; see Section 6.6.8."
While the above steps seem right to me, still there is the problem that
this step requires sending a message which is defined as invalid, i.e.
we can not do the right thing because 6.3.2 says we must not.
Will check the patch through again, with your comments we have some
added confirmation.
Gerrit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
