On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:29PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > I think we need to distinguish between the agreement on the
> > requirement, namely that a server should be able to provide support
> > for an old and a new definition, and agreement on the solution.
> >
> > Do you disagree with the requirement? Or do you disagree with the
> > consequences of implementing multiple versions of the same module
> > for some of the proposed new versioning schemes? Or both?
>
> I do not agree with the requirement that a server MUST be able to
> support multiple revisions of the same module, which is how I
> interpret 3.2. If this is not the intention of 3.2, maybe it can be
> clarified.
>
Here is what 3.2 says:
3.2 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
simultaneously support clients using different revisions of
modules. A client's choice of particular revision of one or
more modules may restrict the particular revision of other
modules that may be used in the same request or session.
This does _not_ say servers MUST implement this.
Item 3.2 establishes a requirement and for some solutions it may be
easy to satisfy this requirement, for others it may be more costly to
satisfy this requirement.
The whole requirements exercise becomes a rather pointless exercise if
we remove requirements so that certain solutions look more attractive.
I have not seen a proposal that addresses all requirements and hence
at the end the WG needs to decide which tradeoffs make sense.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
