[standards-jig] Stream Contexts

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Thu Jun 26 16:51:29 UTC 2003


On Thursday 26 June 2003 09:05 am, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> You know what, your on again off again attitude with SI has been severly
> hindering the process we've been trying to work through.  In the
> protocol gathering you were largely alright with the decisions made
> there.  Yet it seems within the week after a gathering you raise some
> other "issue" or revise REL to be exactly like what exists.  This is
> tiresome and boring.

I apologize, I had forgotten about the retry feature.  Yes, I first tried to 
figure out a simple way to do this in SI.  No, I couldn't come to an answer.  
Yes, I modified REL as a result.

> As I read it now, you've basically created double duty for clients.  REL
> forces the client to use many back and forths during the actual
> negotiation (seperation of usage and stream negotiation)

Right, and it would have been nice to avoid this, but conceptually is there 
any other way?  The other question is whether or not the feature is worth the 
extra step (not necessarily a question for you, as I know your answer, but 
maybe another can respond).

> and even worse
> the stream itself now has double duty.  Because of the CID transmission
> you now have to hook up a REL parser, and then change that out for the
> actual stream usage.  Sure it might look easy on paper
[...]

Well, S5B must be handled similarly as well, as it has a 'wire handshake', so 
I don't think this is new territory.  Even so, how else can we pass the cid 
in a standard way without using the datastream?  That was the original topic 
of this thread.

> I don't know what else to say at this point.  Others can chime in or
> not, but I'm getting close to finding someone to motion SI to last call
> and we can debate the fine points, before vote, then.

If you aren't going to consider the two issues above, then I agree.  Let's 
move forward.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list