RE: Problem with use of NotUnderstood in negotiations

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Bill,

Perhaps the text is unabiguos but you just ignored the text that forbids
it.
The use of Notunderstood is limited to responses. Using it as you suggest
is a protocol error.
A repeated use will also violate the "no renegotiation rule".

Julo




                                                                                                                                    
                      Bill Studenmund                                                                                               
                      <wrstuden@wasabis        To:       Bart Crane <bcrane@iready.com>                                             
                      ystems.com>              cc:       <ips@ece.cmu.edu>                                                          
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: Problem with use of NotUnderstood in negotiations                      
                      owner-ips@ece.cmu                                                                                             
                      .edu                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                    
                      08/10/2002 02:22                                                                                              
                      AM                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                    



On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Bart Crane wrote:

?? In the scenario I describe, neither side believes it offered the key.

> Thus, there is no need to add another rule regarding not-responding to
> keys with NotUnderstood as a value, because a key with that value is
> a protocol error.
>
> This could be made more explicit, but there does not seem to be any
> ambiguity.

There obviously is ambiguity. The fact we're having this discussion is
proof. :-)

I'd support saying this case is a protocol error, since it means something
neither side understands got into the stream (and chances are an offer got
removed). But I think adding an explicit direction as to what to do is
needed.

Take care,

Bill