-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2011 03:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > This would break all the current deployments and implementation and not just > in a way where some new software would need to be pushed out - all new > certificates would need to be issues. From my point of view, this is too late > for this change and instead it could be addressed with an extension.
About this "breaking current deployment" thing, it seems to me that anyway when RELOAD will be published as an RFC, the version number with be incremented to 1.0 (0x0a), so implementations of the RFC will *not* be compatible with *any* of the current implementations. And because of this, I really do not understand why the authors of RELOAD are fighting so hard to not break things that will be broken anyway - there was multiple instances of things that could have been improved in the document but stayed because of this (the fragment bit is one example of this). Having been there multiple times I really understand the plight of early implementers but I would never ever use this as a justification to keep useless stuff in a protocol. What should have been done is simply to increment the version each time a new version of the draft would have broken interoperability - and we had the possibility to do that 8 times (versions 0.1 to 0.9). > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> please, let me know whether or not these modifications will be included in >> the base draft at this point. >> [...] - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: [email protected] Professional email: [email protected] Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4gfxoACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cxtQCeK9nUyj9XzOp0+8q9Mdhtp9Sg 3QoAoJaA4VCBUqtphhjrUMyAiaVmsNRc =gx2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
