RE: versioning...

Then we end up with a private syntax within XML/URI schemes which is very
bad.

It is generally accepted in the protocol community that there is a need to
support version numbers, in fact it is one of the cannonical faults that
first run protocols make, look at the kludge that Tim got into with HTTP!

It is also generally accepted that a protocol needs to alert a responder to
three possible cases, the same protocol being used, a compatible enhanced
protocol being used, an incompatible protocol being used.


	Phill


Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick J. Hirsch [mailto:fjh@alum.mit.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie';
> www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: versioning...
> 
> 
> Couldn't the uri be defined to offer ordering e.g.
> http://www.foo.org/xkms/1.2.1?
> 
> (This would require defining the format of URIs for that 
> specific purpose)
> 
> < Frederick
> fjh@fjhirsch.com
> 
> 
> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:46:49 -0800
> > To: "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>,
> > www-xkms@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: versioning...
> > Resent-From: www-xkms@w3.org
> > Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:46:09 -0500 (EST)
> > 
> > I was just writing a post on this exact topic. Actually, 
> SAML is still using
> > Major and Minor version numbers.
> > 
> > The argument goes:
> > 
> > Using URIs as version identifiers does not provide 
> sufficient information to
> > an application. In particular there is no ordering defined on URIs.
> > 
> > So it is not possible to use the URI alone to obtain the 
> information one
> > traditionally requires from a version number scheme, i.e.
> > 
> > Major version of request is higher than that supported
> > Indicates a protocol incompatibility
> > 
> > Minor version of request is higher than that supported
> > Indicates that the request is supported but a software update might
> > be advisable.
> > 
> > etc. etc.
> > 
> > 
> > I do not think that we get enough out of the URI alone so 
> yes, I think we
> > should keep the major/minor version tags.
> > 
> > 
> > Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> > Principal Scientist
> > VeriSign Inc.
> > pbaker@verisign.com
> > 781 245 6996 x227
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:34 PM
> >> To: www-xkms@w3.org
> >> Subject: versioning...
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> (Since there's not been discussion on Joeseph's issues/proposal
> >> mail, I'm starting threads on each of his issues in the hope
> >> that that'll be easier for folks to process. If I feel like it,
> >> I'll also say what I think.)
> >> 
> >> Joseph wondered:
> >>> Why do we need required Major and Minor versions? Please use
> >>> namespace/URIs. (Is the Minor/MajorVersion somehow define
> >> the semantic of 
> >>> the "Success" if it changed between versions?)
> >> 
> >> And I tend to agree. I suspect that this was something in common
> >> with the SAML specification, but since SAML's changed to use
> >> URIs and its the right thing to do anyway (at least IMHO), I'd
> >> be for changing.
> >> 
> >> Stephen.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> Stephen Farrell             
> >> Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
> >> 39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
> >> Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
> >> Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
> >> 
> > 
> > 
>