Subject: [clue] Comments on draft-ietf-clue-protocol-01

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:43:32 -0400

I know others have questioned representing versions as strings of form 
"M.m", vs. representing them as two fields.

ISTM we need to discuss the tradeoffs here. This representation is 
certainly concise, and convenient for the sender. It would be convenient 
for the receiver too if all version comparisons were for equality. But 
there is need for the receiver to compare major and minor parts 
separately, and to do a numeric >= comparison on the minor version, so 
its necessary for the receiver to parse the received version values.

Having them as separate attributes would make this easier. But it would 
make messages bigger. And it really just moves the parsing from the 
application code to the xml processor.

Also, I think that the complex comparison only needs to be done for the 
OPTIONS message. Only the v= is used in other messages, and should only 
need an equality comparison as a verification.

So in balance, I personally am in favor of the representation you have 
chosen.

Have the examples been verified to be compatible with the schema?

	Thanks,
	Paul