Subject: DHRepInfo missing an extensibility marker

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:27:58 -0800

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

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:05:32 -0600

> implementations, so I would consider it as non-invasive.

Then do add it.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:12:58 -0500

> 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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:05:00 -0500

>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu <[email-masked]> 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.