On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:11 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> At 10:56 PM 1/20/2003 Monday, Robert Withers wrote:
>> oops, I think that I do want this negotiation in VatTP.  In CapTP, 
>> neither
>> side knows who the incoming connection was, do they?
>
> Don't need to. Since (by assumption in the previous reply), we're
> negotiating a semantics-free choice, we can treat each direction as a
> separate decision. I imagine a protocol like the following:
>
> Both Alice and Bob just start speaking in Doc/XML. This lets message 
> traffic
> flow prior to negotiating another format, which is good, since latency 
> is
> more important that bandwidth or marshalling time.
>
> Alice, whenever she feels like it, tells Bob "you also may speak to me 
> in
> Doc/doc-code or Doc/term-tree". Alice says this on the Alice->Bob 
> link, but
> she's speaking only about the Bob->Alice link.
>
> Bob, anytime after he's gotten such permission, says in Doc/XML "I'm
> switching to Doc/doc-code". The next Bob->Alice packet must then be 
> encoded
> in Doc/doc-code.
>
> The above sequence of events may happen to be interleaved with a
> corresponding negotiation about the other direction, or not. In any 
> case,
> these two choices don't need to be synchronized or coordinated.
>
> So I think this issue should stay at the CapTP level.

ok, this works for me.  "you also may speak to me in Doc/doc-code or 
SqueakDoc or SqueakBinary"

and for a very good reason too.  I like it a lot!

rob


>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
>
>         Cheers,
>         --MarkM
>
>