W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [arch-d] The proper fole of version numbers

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:33:03 -0500
Message-ID: <e9dffd640802061133q95972d7s6445171617be697b@mail.gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org

On 2/6/08, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Howdy.
>
> Some specifications embed a version number in the protocol or format data.  Most
> IETF protocols do not.
>
> Over the years, I've come to believe that the lesson to us has been that version
> numbers really aren't all that helpful and that the proper way to distinguish
> truly incompatible versions is through use of a different value in the
> underlying multiplexing field.  So, different IP <protocol> field, different
> <port> number, different DNS underscore "attribute", etc.

I think there's a place for both approaches, but I do agree that the
encapsulating layer mux/dispatch-point isn't used as often as it
should be.

> As a recent, private discussion has progressed, I've started to consider the
> topic more interesting than I had previously thought and wondered whether there
> was interest amongst others to pursue it?

A BCP for protocol versioning sounds like a good idea.

FWIW, at the top of the protocol stack is data versioning, which the
W3C TAG (BCCd, because I'm sure they'd be interested) has been
exploring;

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 19:33:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:52 GMT