Subject: RE: DHRepInfo missing an extensibility marker

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:35:59 -0800

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: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Hutzelman
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:13 PM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu; [email-masked]
Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Subject: Re: DHRepInfo missing an extensibility marker

On Tuesday, November 29, 2005 04:27:58 PM -0800 "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" 
<[email-masked]> 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