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