Protocol update effort (tracking issue)

[opencyphal]

Protocol update effort (tracking issue)

[pavel-kirienko]

I marked the TAO entry as decided since the consensus seems to be in favor of its complete removal. Bye bye TAO.

[kjetilkjeka]

@pavel-kirienko feel free to add/edit stuff, or uncheck things if i were to quick to check them.

[kjetilkjeka]

Settle on whether CRC should include data type signature (or other forms of compatibility analyzis).

I think we've practically reached consensus on that the CRC should not include data type signatures or similar. Check off your ticky box if you agree to the conclusion and that the discussion has been left open long enough. Or edit and add another ticky box if you want to bring the attention to someone else.

• @kjetilkjeka
• @thirtytwobits
• @pavel-kirienko

[pavel-kirienko]

It has been suggested to use a bit in the transfer ID, but the current discussion is leaning towards not conveying protocol version info over the wire.

I think the discussion is leaning towards using the toggle bit for that. I took the liberty to reflect that in the draft (sec 4.2.3.2), believing that that was the consensus:

Transfers where the initial value of the toggle bit is zero must be ignored. The initial state of the toggle bit may be inverted in the future revisions of the protocol to facilitate automatic protocol version detection.

[kjetilkjeka]

Yes you're absolutely right. Thanks for pointing this out, I've updated the overview now.

[pavel-kirienko]

Marked the following as resolved:

• Settle on how the protocol version should be conveyed over the wire
• Figure out how we handle deprecations of definitions.
• Figure out if we should do anything to namespacing of dsdl

[pavel-kirienko]

All important things have been settled upon and resolved, so I am closing this. For future reference, many important decisions have been discussed there: https://forum.uavcan.org/c/dev