DHRepInfo missing an extensibility marker

[Larry Zhu]

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

[Nicolas Williams]

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.

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

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

[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

[Sam Hartman-5]

>>>>> "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.