[zeromq-dev] Differences between ZMTP 3 RFC23 and libzmq master implementation

[Pieter Hintjens]

Hi Laurent,

The RFC is authoritative. If you read the section "Detecting ZMTP 1.0
and 2.0 Peers" you will see what is happening.

-Pieter

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Laurent Alebarde <l.alebarde at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Pieter,
>
> It looks like there are differences between the ZMTP 3 RFC23 ws libzmq
> master implementation. My test is the same case than the "worked example" of
> the RFC:
>
> "A DEALER client connects to a ROUTER server. Both client and server are
> running ZMTP and the implementation has backwards compatibility detection.
> The peers will use the NULL security mechanism to talk to each other."
>
> "The client sends a partial greeting (11 octets) " : I receive only the 10
> first bytes,which are the signature, but not the major version as expected.
> I receive next a 97 bytes message (The first byte is the major version). In
> the RFC, this supposed to be two different messages or frames (first one
> should end with the filler):
>
> 3  0  NULL      0            0             4    41    5 READY   11
> Socket-Type   0 0 0 6 DEALER   8 Identity             0 0 0 0
> M m mecha as-server filler       flags size Cmd name  Prop Name         Prop
> Val               Prop Name         Prop Val
> 0  1  2-21       22         23-53    54     55    56-61          62-73
> 74-83                 84-92                  93-96
> 10 11 12-31   32         33-63    64
>
> This raises a few questions :
>
> I have not and won't test the version negotiation. does it work ?
> test_stream.cpp works in conformance with what I have monitored. What is the
> baseline, the RFC or the implementation ?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>