Re: Magic numbers again

Are you looking at the latest version of the DIME spec, released June
2002? One of the changes was the use of a 5-bit magic number at the
start of the record, see here [1] for the announcement & list of changes
or see section 3.2.1 in the spec [2].

--Peter
http://www.razorsoft.net/weblog
http://staff.develop.com/peterd

[1]
http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0206d&L=dime&T=0&F=&S=&
P=144
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-02.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of Direct Internet Message Encapsulation
> (DIME) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dror Harari
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:37 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Magic numbers again
>
>
> Does anyone of the DIME leaders care to explain the reason
> why no magic
> number is used in DIME. The question was rased in the past
> but no answer
> was given.
>
> Magic number adds virtually no overhead to the protocol (4 bypes per
> message) but it can be very helpful in various scenarios:
>
> - When analyzing wire protocols, a magic number makes it easy
> to identify
> the protocol and present it correctly
> - When a server needs to support multiple protocols, a magic number is
> indispensable. This is even more so with a new protocol such
> as DIME that
> may be used to replace older or proprietary protocols.
> Facilitating the
> recognition of DIME can help DIME to catch on faster.
>
> An alternative to a magic could be a common agreement on a special
> DIME 'magic record' but that's artificial and less usefull.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dror Harari
>