Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> writes: > On 20.03.22 16:02, Roger Price wrote: >>I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor >>(ISE): >> >> The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of >> implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a >> protocol. The best example of such a failure is the browser version >> field in HTTP. A complete disaster. You should warn against use of >> this command, or even better, deprecate it. >> >> I was not aware of the disaster in the browser version field, but I >> will warn against use of VER, and deprecate it, if you agree. > > Isn't this designed for announcing protocol version for compatibility?
Protocol version is one thing and should be defined by the RFC. All implementations of the protocol should advertise the same version. Software type/version of the implementation is something else. Yes, everything may be from nut sources, but having a protocol RFC is about moving from "the protocol is defined by the code" to "the protocol is defined by the spec".
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
