[BXXPwg] Extensible trailers

Marshall Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:55:16 -0700


err, the proposal i forwarded doesn't have the properties you suggest.
specifically, you still know when you've hit the end of the frame because
you see END on a line all by itself. the reason the extra information goes
in the trailer rather than the header is probably a matter of taste,
although there probably is something to be said for having optional stuff
show up at the end rather than the beginning...

/mtr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Hudson" <ghudson@mit.edu>
To: <bxxpwg@lists.invisible.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:03
Subject: [BXXPwg] Extensible trailers


> Marshall reported the following suggestion for extensible trailers:
>
> >     trailer = *(directive CR LF) "END" CR LF
> >     directive = atom *(SP word)
>
> This would seem to compromise the value of the trailer as a
> consistency check, and would also seem to compromise the readability
> of the protocol in certain cases.  (That is, without counting bytes,
> it will often be difficult to tell where the data part of a frame ends
> and where the trailer begins.
>
> So if we're going to do this, I might suggest something more along the
> lines of:
>
> trailer = END CR LF *(directive CR LF) CR LF
> directive = atom *(SP word)
>
> > it was noted that if the framing format is going to support new
> > features, then it probably needs some place to put options,
> > parameters, etc. the logical place is in the trailer.
>
> Why is the logical place in the trailer and not in the header?
>
> _______________________________________________
> BXXPwg mailing list
> BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
> http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg
>