[dcc2] Reducing the size of the DCC2 negotiation message

[Dave Johnson]

codemastr writes:
> This got me thinking about ways to reduce the size. I then thought of
> machine convenience. Why does everything need to be text based? For example,
> you specify "TLS1," why? A machine is reading it, not a person. Why not do a
> simple mapping?
> 
> TransportSecurity
> Protocol    TokenValue
> TLS1         1
> SSL3         2
> Blowfish     3
> 
> Then instead of having to do "TransportSecurity=TLS1,SSL3,Blowfish" you just
> do "TransportSecurity=1,2,3" that clearly reduces the size of the message.
> So it saves bandwidth, but it also makes processing faster. A machine can
> compare the character "3" much faster than it can compare the string
> "Blowfish"

I like reducing the length of tokens, but substitution of values by
numbers seems a bit extreme.  While primarially machine read, it is
certanly easier to debug an issue while implementing to have names
instead of assinged numbers to everything.

It also means that the only way to add additional values is to get
them assigned an official number.  This increases the likelyhood that
someone will get fed up and start assigning numbers on their own
within their own client before they are approved.  Incompatibilites
will certanly occur at this point.

A 4 letter value is not a big deal, reducing long items such as
'Blowfish' into say 'Bfsh' is more than sufficient.

> Network -> Net
> Transport -> Trans
> TransportSecurity -> TransSec
> Application -> App
> ErrorTokens -> ErrToks
> ErrorMessage -> ErrMsg
> Offset -> Off
> Filename -> Name

All good.  'TransportSecurity' could be simply called 'Security'.
Transport is implied.


-- 
Dave