From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NV7Fu-0000Ji-Kc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:43:42 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NV7Fp-0000JK-3s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:43:41 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52925 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NV7Fo-0000JH-VD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:43:36 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58888)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NV7Fo-0008H9-CU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:43:36 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:43:27 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QMP forward compatibility support
Message-ID: <20100113154327.5c3d245c@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <m3hbqplxam.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <20100111163422.0d86d2bb@doriath> <4B4B748B.6010008@codemonkey.ws>
	<20100111220436.14c662a5@doriath> <4B4BC138.1000500@codemonkey.ws>
	<20100112101102.396b15fb@doriath>
	<m3hbqqndyl.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20100113150643.24509d01@doriath>
	<m3hbqplxam.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@redhat.com

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:38:57 +0100
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
> > Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> [...]
> >> >  I'm thinking in something like this:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Connection is made, the greeting message is sent and QMP is
> >> > in 'handshake mode'
> >> >
> >> > 2. In this mode only commands to enable/disable protocol
> >> > capabilities are allowed
> >> >
> >> > 3. When the client is done with the setup, it issues the
> >> > command 'enable-qmp', which puts the protocol into 'running mode',
> >> > where any command is accepted
> >> 
> >> Really "any command"?  What about commands to enable/disable protocol
> >> capabilities?
> >
> >  I think that playing with some protocol bits might be safe, like
> > enabling async messages.
> >
> >  I'm not saying this is a good practice, but forbidding it seems a bit
> > extreme at first.
> 
> Allowing stuff when it turns out to be needed is less painful than
> outlawing stuff when it turns out to be problematic.

 I forgot to mention we can block them, that's fine. :)

 So, do we agree with the general design? I'll cook a RFC series.