On 07 Nov (09:40:36), Damian Johnson wrote: > > What do you propose exactly? > > Hi David. What I mean is that having an optional positional field... > > MyEvent Field1 Field2 [Field3] Key1=Value1 > > ... means we cannot ever add more positional fields in the future. For > example... > > MyEvent Field1 Field2 [Field3] [Field4] Key1=Value1 > > ... would be ambiguous if the third field is Field3 or Field4 since > they're both optional. We also could not add new mandatory positional > fields... > > MyEvent Field1 Field2 Field4 [Field3] Key1=Value1 > > ... because it would be ambiguous if the third field was Field4 with a > new version of tor or Field3 with an old one. > > > I can't really change the "DescriptorID" to a > > key=value format. So, you think I should just not extend that field and use a > > new "key=value" for it? > > Why not? Does the DescriptorID have equal signs in it? If so then you > could also make this be a mandatory positional field with a filler > value like 'none' if unavailable. Oh! I guess we aren't breaking backward compat. by changing DescriptorID field because it is optional in the first place so all future version will simply never use it and only use the new "DescriptorID=<value>" field instead. Thanks! David > > Cheers! -Damian > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev -- 1ThD0Y7lJWfAN3qxos27iPGUdHQS5sZ4kMwlov3un5k=
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev