On 3/21/22 15:08, Greg Troxel wrote:
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.
That is
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-protver
...
Software type/version of the implementation is something else.
... versus
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-ver
which is a different beast
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".
I agree with that. But I still see no problem in advertising the
software version. After all, each time I boot I see:
Mar 20 22:19:03 wolfy3 kernel: Linux version
3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 (mockbu...@kbuilder.bsys.centos.org)
(gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44) (GCC) ) #1 SMP Wed
Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022
I know not only the kernel version and distribution but even the
compiler version that was in use. Which, incidentally, is important in
some contexts
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
