Frank Ellermann wrote:
Some general questions about this draft:
1 - Has anybody implemented it ?
Yes. See http://iris.verisignlabs.com/blojsom/blog/iris/
2 - If so, do test servers exist for client developers ?
Yes. See above. Additionally, see the archives of the CRISP wg.
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers (and
lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better. Don't know
what you mean by tricks, but the deflation is optional.
Other nits: Reference [5] RFC 2396 isn't state of the art.
[2] Unicode version 3 is unclear, XML 1.0 third ed. apparently
uses 3.2 (?), and it requires UTF-8 and UTF-16, as repeated in
the I18N considerations (chapter 5). Maybe the RFCs for UTF-8
and UTF-16 should be referenced if that's explicitly mentioned,
that boils down to "MUST accept (and for UTF-16 send) a BOM".
s/draft-ietf-crips/draft-ietf-crisp/ and s/-00// (that typo is
also in the common-transport draft pointing back to [9} LWZ).
s/3891/3981/ in both drafts.
All good catches. Thanks.
Example A.1 contains elements <salt> and <md5>, what is this ?
Those are in the http://example.com namespace, and this is just an example
extension. Perhaps it would be clearer if the example just had text content
saying "example extension".
-andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf