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
|
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 <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WwoM0-0001zE-7m
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:02:52 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.80])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WwoLy-0002yb-BE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:02:52 +0000
Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36])
by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id FL1e1o0020mv7h058L2ivk; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:02:42 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id FL2h1o00D4VnV2P3XL2hDX; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:02:42 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:02:41 -0400
Message-ID: <2024964.4FECq06JhC@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.1 (Linux/3.12.20-gentoo; KDE/4.13.1; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAgQAZzwgONbD==fYTsV9jWKCZ6+gTiwohUT_H5kT_MoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
<CA+s+GJAgQAZzwgONbD==fYTsV9jWKCZ6+gTiwohUT_H5kT_MoA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [76.96.62.80 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1WwoLy-0002yb-BE
Cc: 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 08:02:52 -0000
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.
|
