On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 04:36:41PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:46:52PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: [...] > > > + Note that even when extended headers are in use, the client MUST be > > > + prepared for the server to use either the compact or extended chunk > > > + type, regardless of whether the client's hinted effect length was > > > + more or less than 32 bits; but the server MUST use exactly one of > > > + the two chunk types per negotiated metacontext ID. > > > > Is this last paragraph really a good idea? I would think it makes more > > sense to require the new format if we're already required to support it > > on both sides anyway. > > My proof of implementation was easier to code when I didn't have to > resize the block status reply sizing in the same patch as adding the > 64-bit headers. But if you think requiring the 64-bit reply type > always (and forbidding the 32-bit reply) when extended headers are in > force, that's also possible.
Intuitively, this sounds off. It would seem to me that it's easier to do if you don't have to have a conditional on each received data packet. But maybe I'm missing something -- I haven't done an implementation yet, anyway. -- w@uter.{be,co.za} wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org} I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.