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


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:55 UTC