The DHRepInfo structure currently does not have an extensibility marker.
That probably was simply an oversight. Do you think we should add an extensibility marker to DHRepInfo? If we have the consensus, this change should not break existing implementations, so I would consider it as non-invasive. Thanks, -- Larry |
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:27:58PM -0800, Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote:
> The DHRepInfo structure currently does not have an extensibility marker. > That probably was simply an oversight. > > Do you think we should add an extensibility marker to DHRepInfo? > > If we have the consensus, this change should not break existing > implementations, so I would consider it as non-invasive. Then do add it. |
In reply to this post by Larry Zhu
On Tuesday, November 29, 2005 04:27:58 PM -0800 "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[hidden email]> wrote: > The DHRepInfo structure currently does not have an extensibility marker. > That probably was simply an oversight. > > Do you think we should add an extensibility marker to DHRepInfo? > > If we have the consensus, this change should not break existing > implementations, so I would consider it as non-invasive. Speaking as an individual, I have no objection to this change. Note that while this does not change the bits on the wire, it does change the required behavior of implementations -- without the extension marker, implementations would be required to reject messages containing additional unknown data elements; with it, they are required to accept such messages, and ignore-but-preserve the extra data. -- Jeff |
In reply to this post by Larry Zhu
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> Note that while this does not change the bits on the wire, it does change > the required behavior of implementations -- without the extension marker, > implementations would be required to reject messages containing additional > unknown data elements; with it, they are required to accept such messages, > and ignore-but-preserve the extra data. You can patch the implementation without breaking existing deployments, thus the impact of this change should be minimal. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Hutzelman Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:13 PM To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu; [hidden email] Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman Subject: Re: DHRepInfo missing an extensibility marker On Tuesday, November 29, 2005 04:27:58 PM -0800 "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[hidden email]> wrote: > The DHRepInfo structure currently does not have an extensibility marker. > That probably was simply an oversight. > > Do you think we should add an extensibility marker to DHRepInfo? > > If we have the consensus, this change should not break existing > implementations, so I would consider it as non-invasive. Speaking as an individual, I have no objection to this change. Note that while this does not change the bits on the wire, it does change the required behavior of implementations -- without the extension marker, implementations would be required to reject messages containing additional unknown data elements; with it, they are required to accept such messages, and ignore-but-preserve the extra data. -- Jeff |
In reply to this post by Larry Zhu
>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu <[hidden email]> writes:
Liqiang(Larry)> The DHRepInfo structure currently does not have an Liqiang(Larry)> extensibility marker. That probably was simply an Liqiang(Larry)> oversight. Liqiang(Larry)> Do you think we should add an extensibility marker Liqiang(Larry)> to DHRepInfo? Speaking as an individual, yes. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |