Nodes pass fields they do not understand as a matter of forward compatibility - it makes it possible to add fields that every node does not have to obey without worrying about every single node implementing them.
Obviously, if we have to implement new fields that nodes need to know about and increment, sign or whatever, then we will have to do that and change the version of the protocol. On Sun, 14 May 2000, Lawrence W. Leung wrote: > > > Why don't we just drop unknown fields? What we're talking about is a node > > > > I agree. We could have a possible screw-up situation when a node passes > > on an unknown field, when it was really ment to decrement it, or sign it > > or something. The bad value could cause problems at the next node which > > does understand the field. > > I thought this is part of the advantage of having fields in the form of > X.Y.Z=<stuff> > > So routing only needs to know how to handle the X field. Fields should > only be dropped if X is unknown. > > -Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- ___ Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
