Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SIa24-0006C6-9e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:30:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-pb0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SIa23-0007eI-KX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:30:56 +0000 Received: by pbcum15 with SMTP id um15so3530346pbc.34 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:30:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.218.198 with SMTP id pi6mr2153436pbc.100.1334298649809; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.242.19 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:30:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1334251458.43194.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: sirk390@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f503bea0bd3e404bd899dc1 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1SIa23-0007eI-KX Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Adding request/reply id in messages X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:30:56 -0000 --e89a8f503bea0bd3e404bd899dc1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > I don't understand why you say my proposal would make the protocol more > stateful. I think it doesn't. > Each reply is only the result of the current request only, and there is > no new session information. > I also wondered this. My first thought was that it's basically the same as the PING message, a nonce that is repeated immediately on reply. This makes it easier to multiplex operations over a single channel. I'm not against this basic idea, and it is easy to ignore for clients that don't want to use it. I think the state comes in here: - inv sends back the requestid given in getblocks or a special value in case of a notification. - addr sends back the requestid given in getaddr or a special value in case of a notification. "*command1* sends back the requestid given in *command2*". This requires keeping state on the connection between command1 and command2. Arguably, this state already exists in the current protocol, but I'd rather see it reduced than extended. Also... Many of the described commands don't need this as they already have a natural "nonce". For example, the id of the requested block header. If this is passed in the reply, and the caller can correlate the request and reply without a special nonce administration. Wladimir --e89a8f503bea0bd3e404bd899dc1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't understand why you say my proposa= l would make the protocol more stateful