On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 12:07:39PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Willy,
> Am 14.03.20 um 10:13 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> >> This is about the "Table Definition Message", more specifically the
> >> "Encoded Table Type".
> >>
> >> docs/peers-v2.0.txt says:
> > 
> > There's also doc/peers.txt which is more recent and more complete. I don't
> > know if there are still some parts of peers-v2.0 which were not covered by
> > peers.txt.
> Neither of them are sufficient to understand the protocol. Not even both
> of them taken together. Some paragraphs are also pretty unclear. All in
> all I had to read the code to understand what's happening.
> The peers.txt is more correct on what it says, but it's missing
> essential information (e.g. what incremental updates are).
> peers-v2.0.txt contains more information, but also more mistakes
> (especially regarding the "magic numbers" such as the table types).

I think peers-v2.0 was older but committed later to complement the
missing info from the newer one.

> > From now, the best solution likely is to check where the table type is
> > used and instead go back to a table-specific type with hard-coded values
> > matching what we have now.
> > 
> Should I file an issue for tracking that?

Yes, feel free to do so, this will definitely help get it eventually done.


Reply via email to