On 19 Apr 2016, at 13:04, Eric Blake <eblake@...696...> wrote: >>> >>> Question: Should we rearrange the various errors, so that >>> NBD_REP_ERR_UNKNOWN and NBD_REP_ERR_BLOCK_SIZE_REQD are >>> adjacent (since they are, for now, in the same extension >>> branch), by hoising NBD_REP_ERR_SHUTDOWN to 2^32 + 6? We >>> don't yet have any released versions that use >>> NBD_REP_ERR_SHUTDOWN, although it was added as normative text >>> without going through the usual extension work. > > Likewise for putting NBD_OPT_BLOCK_SIZE adjacent to NBD_OPT_GO if we > keep block sizes as part of the INFO extension rather than its own. So I think we can be pretty free and easy with the stuff in extensions. But for things in master, I think we should try not to change them once they are in. I know in this instance it's a tiny thing, and it's only been a matter of days, but it would also have only a tiny gain. Therefore I think not. Incidentally I don't think normative text necessarily needs to go through an 'extension' phase. For instance, if Wouter agrees with us on synchronizing the options haggling phase, we can't really have a 'synchronized option haggling' extension (or whatever the opposite of an extension is). I see extensions as a proving ground for protocol, um, extensions that though we all like the idea, we know are going to have lots of wrinkles to smooth out during implementation. I don't think adding one error code would fall into that category (not that I'm implying you thought it did). -- Alex Bligh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail