Details
-
Task
-
Status: Open
-
Minor
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
10.7.1.1
-
None
-
Low
Description
The client and the server disagrees on whether the extended total length field in the DRDA protocol is signed or unsigned.
A search in the DRDA specification (version 4) was fruitless.
I don't think the current situation results in any practical problems, but it would be nice to determine what the correct representation is and to make the client and the server consistent.
This issue was brought up under DERBY-1595.