On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Michel Pelletier > <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK, I'll bite. The reason for making it one document was partly > because the two layers are interdependent, e.g. the Hello command will > allow a connection even if the UDP beacons were lost. I also submitted > it as a single spec to IANA for simplicity. > > However, splitting it into two specs does make sense. Ah I see the dependency now, I honestly don't feel strongly about it, it was just an observation I made working on the code. As it is I will likely maintain a functional split between the beaconer and the chat implementation in any case. > > I would propose then an extension to the ZRE beacon format. The > original 22 > > byte beacon would still be valid, but another format of a different > version > > would continue with: an octet describing the transport, and octet > describing > > the service socket type, and 4 octets that contain the connect-back > address, > > or something like that. > > That works for me. You can start a new spec for the beacon protocol, > or I'll do it. > A new spec, or an extension of the existing one with a new version? In either case I can work on it and send a draft PR. I'm wondering whether it's time to move our RFCs into github and work > on them using C4 and pull requests. Any thoughts on that? I can > probably get that working without changing the appearance (it'll still > look like a wiki, but would pull in content from a git repo). +1 -Michel
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
