[ADC-Ext 1.0.5] STA 48 - Invalid feature

Pretorian
Site Admin
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:21 am

[ADC-Ext 1.0.5] STA 48 - Invalid feature

Post by Pretorian » Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:27 pm

There is currently no direct way of saying that a feature is invalid... So, to complement STA 45 (feature missing), I suggest adding STA 48 - Invalid feature. flag "FC" is the FOURCC of the invalid feature. If multiple features are invalid, use comma between the features (i.e. FCQWER,ASDF,ZXCV).

darkKlor
Senior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: STA 48 - Invalid feature

Post by darkKlor » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:43 am

**like**

Pietry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:25 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: STA 48 - Invalid feature

Post by Pietry » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:42 am

What do you mean by invalid feature? Not supported perhaps ?
What if later on somebody makes the addition QWER as extension ?
We need to be able to keep compatibility...
Just someone

darkKlor
Senior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: STA 48 - Invalid feature

Post by darkKlor » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:53 am

@Pietry:
The context in which I initially mentioned this idea was a discussion about hubs banning features, such as DHT or segmented downloading (see FlipFlip's SEDL feature announcement proposal). Thus, in this context, 'invalid' would mean 'not welcome'.

I guess, to me, this issue only arises because the client is announcing features where action from the hub is not required, but it is announced out of good citizenship. The obvious response from a malicious client would be to simply not report the feature; however, if the hub was used as a conduit for the feature then obviously the hub could add detection capabilities to remove such unwelcome clients.

Pretorian
Site Admin
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:21 am

Re: STA 48 - Invalid feature

Post by Pretorian » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:28 pm

Added as of ADC-Ext 1.0.5.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google (Crawler) and 0 guests