[tor-dev] Proposal 284: Hidden Service v3 Control Port

David Goulet dgoulet at ev0ke.net
Tue Nov 7 17:47:43 UTC 2017

On 07 Nov (09:40:36), Damian Johnson wrote:
> > What do you propose exactly?
> Hi David. What I mean is that having an optional positional field...
> MyEvent Field1 Field2 [Field3] Key1=Value1
> ... means we cannot ever add more positional fields in the future. For
> example...
> MyEvent Field1 Field2 [Field3] [Field4] Key1=Value1
> ... would be ambiguous if the third field is Field3 or Field4 since
> they're both optional. We also could not add new mandatory positional
> fields...
> MyEvent Field1 Field2 Field4 [Field3] Key1=Value1
> ... because it would be ambiguous if the third field was Field4 with a
> new version of tor or Field3 with an old one.
> > I can't really change the "DescriptorID" to a
> > key=value format. So, you think I should just not extend that field and use a
> > new "key=value" for it?
> Why not? Does the DescriptorID have equal signs in it? If so then you
> could also make this be a mandatory positional field with a filler
> value like 'none' if unavailable.

Oh! I guess we aren't breaking backward compat. by changing DescriptorID field
because it is optional in the first place so all future version will simply
never use it and only use the new "DescriptorID=<value>" field instead.


> Cheers! -Damian
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20171107/3ad6b3de/attachment.sig>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list