Roger Price <ro...@rogerprice.org> writes: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> On 19.04.22 08:56, Roger Price wrote: >>> >>> The problem: the I-D uses PROTVER rather than NETVER, however 2.8.0 >>> only supports NETVER. >>> >>> The argument in favour of PROTVER is that the command is not asking >>> for the version of the _network_. It is asking for the version of >>> the _protocol_. >>> >>> The argument in favour of NETVER is that it is currrently >>> implemented in 2.8.0. >>> >>> Should the I-D revert to NETVER? I will follow whatever the list decides. >> >> can NETVER be declared as obsolete alternative to PROTVER? > > If PROTVER was also implemented, then yes, but if PROTVER is not > implemented, then there would be a divergence between the I-D and NUT > 2.8.0, which I want to avoid.
2.8.0 doesn't exist yet. I suspect Jim would be amenable to making a change to PROTVER as primary with NETVAR as a deprecated alias, and then we can have the spec say what it ought to. It seems like a small code change and rolling another rc.
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
