- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:33:03 -0500
- 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 UTC