>> I'm not sure if the information exists anywhere else
>> but in the source code and with Jeff Hill. I don't recall
> That is what I thought at first place.
>> (over ten years) seeing a document that describes
>> the internals of the protocol - unless Jeff alluded
>> to it in some collaboration meeting.
> Is there any interest on such a document? Or a soruce code may be enough.
There is some intention in this.
Since the CA protocol is not well documented, everyone is forced to use
the CA libraries that come with base. Thus we are able to develop and
improve details of the network protocol without the overhead of an
official protocol change.
As soon as documentation exists, people will start writing their own
libraries. In contrast to the original libraries these will be buggy,
unstable and not compatible with older/newer versions of CA.
Nevertheless, the authors will blame CA for this, flood tech talk with
their questions and absorb valueable manpower to solve problems that
wouldn't exist if they used the original libraries.
Use the CA libraries from base. Don't start writing your own. Just don't.
I think leaving the source code as the only documentation keeps the
scare-off factor on an adequate level. We're open source, not open
protocol.
Cheers,
Ralph
ps. Sorry for the rough tone, but I think opening this would really be a
serious danger. If CA gets suspected of being a flaky protocol, we're in
trouble.
