[zeromq-dev] Comments on ZRE

Michel Pelletier pelletier.michel at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 23:59:02 CET 2013

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Michel Pelletier
> <pelletier.michel at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I'll bite. The reason for making it one document was partly
> because the two layers are interdependent, e.g. the Hello command will
> allow a connection even if the UDP beacons were lost. I also submitted
> it as a single spec to IANA for simplicity.
> However, splitting it into two specs does make sense.

Ah I see the dependency now, I honestly don't feel strongly about it, it
was just an observation I made working on the code.  As it is I will likely
maintain a functional split between the beaconer and the chat
implementation in any case.

> > I would propose then an extension to the ZRE beacon format.  The
> original 22
> > byte beacon would still be valid, but another format of a different
> version
> > would continue with: an octet describing the transport, and octet
> describing
> > the service socket type, and 4 octets that contain the connect-back
> address,
> > or something like that.
> That works for me. You can start a new spec for the beacon protocol,
> or I'll do it.

A new spec, or an extension of the existing one with a new version?  In
either case I can work on it and send a draft PR.

I'm wondering whether it's time to move our RFCs into github and work
> on them using C4 and pull requests. Any thoughts on that? I can
> probably get that working without changing the appearance (it'll still
> look like a wiki, but would pull in content from a git repo).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20130205/1c945268/attachment.html>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list