On Fri, 22 Dec 2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
3. Incompatible features: This is the interesting case, where the previous
and later versions have conflicting behaviors. My view is that this is not
merely a new 'version' but, rather, is a new protocol. However the protocol
itself -- not version -- has been identified by the lower layer, a new label
should be used.
As you note, in a tag=value system you don't need versioning to add or
ignore tags. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether it's a good
idea to invent a new name for every version tweak that's not fully
backward compatible, particularly ones that don't change the parsing, just
the interpretation.
R's,
John
PS: But if you're saying that IPv6 should have had a different name, I
totally agree.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
