Subject: RE: London: Call for agenda items

From: "Robert D. Russell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:00:34 -0400

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
>

---

From: "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:36:05 -0700

Marj

---

From: "Matt Wakeley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:43:58 -0700

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

---

From: "Robert D. Russell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:23:01 -0400

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