RE: London: Call for agenda items

["Robert D. Russell" <rdr@mars.iol.unh.edu>]

Marjorie:

True there have been new opcodes, but there have been new opcodes
before.  My point is why start changing the version number NOW
when we haven't been doing it before?  By your reasoning, we should
be up to version 7 now, not version 2.
A problem with changing the version numbers is that the current
scheme by which an initiator offers versions to a target is that
there can be no holes in the offering.  If the version numbers
change too quickly it will be a lot of work to track the
intermediate versions.  A version change should be really significant,
ie. at the IETF level, not at the draft level.  We are still at the
draft level.
Bob Russell


On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

> >  My personal opinion is still that draft 7 is really just
> > a refinement and clarification of ambiguities in draft 6, and does
> > not add any major features that justify a version change. However, ...
> 
> Not true, there are significant changes to opcodes and some change to header
> fields between v6 and v7 - that should *at least* be a criteria for a
> version number change!
> 
> Marj
>