RE: Channel response serialization

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Marshall Rose
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:28 PM
> To: Paul Andrews; [email protected]
> Cc: Marshall Rose
> Subject: Re: [BEEPwg] Channel response serialization
>
>
> > OK. I don't want to rat-hole on this so: do I understand correctly that
> you
> > are proposing to amend the RFC to make serialization on a channel
> optional?
>
> no. what i'm proposing is that we use beep's extension mechanism (called
> "features") and write a new document that talks defines a feature that
> removes the same-order property. rfc3080 doesn't change. presumably a new
> rfc gets published that describes how something implementing rfc3080 can
> also say that it does the new thing too.

Boy. Talk about jumping in at the deep end (to mix my metamphors). Just when
I thought I was getting a handle on all this BEEP stuff I'm introduced to
features. I have to say I'd tried to find out how the 'Extensible' bit
worked. I guess I should've read the RFC from start to finish.

I don't suppose you have an 'Idiots Guide to Adding Features' do you?

>
> /mtr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BEEPwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg