Re: London: Call for agenda items

["Matt Wakeley" <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>]

Robert,

Your idea kills any hope of interoperability if some vendors choose to ship
products based on certain revisions of the draft - the current "0 vs 6" case
in point.

-Matt

"Robert D. Russell" wrote:
> 
> 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
> >