1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WwoRc-0002DJ-Bq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:08:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.181; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WwoRZ-00039R-FO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:08:40 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id y20so6024042ier.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.22.212 with SMTP id p20mr21854232icb.28.1402992511588;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2024964.4FECq06JhC@crushinator>
References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
<CA+s+GJAgQAZzwgONbD==fYTsV9jWKCZ6+gTiwohUT_H5kT_MoA@mail.gmail.com>
<2024964.4FECq06JhC@crushinator>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:08:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBJ5aXNEv+8zARXHPL1+fg1Etd3-EhF2TeW+gS-_r+s3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WwoRZ-00039R-FO
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: allocate 8 service bits for
experimental use
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:08:40 -0000
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 9:57 am, Wladimir wrote:
>> Yes, as I said in the github topic
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a
>> string-based name space for extensions.
>
> Why use textual strings? These fields are not for human consumption. Why not use UUIDs, which are fixed length and will not waste as much bandwidth in the protocol? Or if you'd prefer a hierarchical namespace, you could use OIDs, a la ASN.1.
Come on, this is only sent over the line at connection time at most
once. No need to overdesign a scheme here.
Anyhow, if we like to bike-shed so much:
- UUIDs are 16 bytes -- most human-recognizable strings are shorter.
And they're ugly to use as well.
- OIDs need central and hierarchical coordination, just what we're
trying to avoid.
Wladimir
|
