Re: London: Call for agenda items

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

Matt:

The problem is that there is no consensus version 1.
Most current "draft 6" implementations are really implementing
"draft 6+", where the "+" comes from the many corrections,
additions, deletions, etc. that appeared on the mailing list after
draft 6 was posted and that were necessary to make draft 6 workable.
In particular, most are using the new opcodes
because the opcodes published in draft 6 were a surprise, were widely
disliked, and were replaced (twice) in subsequent mailings.
There is no approved document that defines version 1.
The best hope for interoperabilty is to produce a stable standard
draft that can gain a reasonable consensus and then finalize the
process.

Bob

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Matt Wakeley wrote:

> 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
> > >
>