Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:41:43 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <20150824174141.GA7441@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
	<20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen
> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here that
> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is
> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOOM but
> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some
> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"?

Yes, it makes sense to not explicitly exclude it. 
Looks good to me.

Wladimir