I appreciate your strategic view of FSPv3.  I totally agree with the strategic planned approach, and I did not mean to imply my immediate needs would somehow derail that approach.  I was merely trying to understand your strategy and plan, and what potential involvements/opportunities for contribution.  I was only offering to provide the work I have performed, or will perform, as potential incorporation, or as a reference code base of some reuse opportunities, for FSPv2+ or FSPv3.  Whether accepted or not, I would be happy to contribute to Requirements/Strategy of FSPv3.  Our key needs are native Authentication/Encryption without the need for IPSec, as well as, good performance and reliability characteristics for wireless environments -- the solution to meet these needs/requirements is open at this point for me.

Jeff




> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:47:02 +0200
> From: hsn@sendmail.cz
> To: fsp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [FSP-devel] FSPv3 Status - on hold
>
> Dne 2.7.2010 18:20, Jeff Hawkins napsal(a):
>
> FSPv3 was not supposed to be just FSPv2 over DTLS but protocol with new
> protocol header with for example 8 byte wide file offset pointers. More
> detailed list of requirements for FSPv3 needs to be made first and then
> write draft specification of this new protocol. FSPv3 design must be
> done in more strategic way than just accept some code changes. Existing
> FSPv2 users needs to be contacted if they are interested in design of
> FSPv3 and then submit their requirements for such new protocol. For
> example - should be FSPv3 still windowless protocol?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
> Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
> _______________________________________________
> FSP-devel mailing list
> FSP-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fsp-devel