Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised

Ok, so what I'm doing is preparing a FLUTE revision 12, with the only change
being that the version is incremented from 1 to 2 and saying it may not be
backwards compatible with version 1, whereas previously it said it was
backwards compatible and kept it as version 1.

One question: since we are changing the version number, should this be
reflected in the title of the document, i.e., instead of being:

"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport"

Should it now be something like:

"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport - Version 2"

?

Also, there is no opportunity to upload a new draft until November 8, due to
the current IETF meeting.
Mike


On 11/1/10 6:47 PM, "David Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The IESG has reviewed the changes made, found them to be not
> backwards-compatible, and reached consensus that a new version is
> called for.
> 
> I would like to see the WG make progress on this draft soon.
> 
> David Harrington
> Director, IETF Transport Area
> [email protected] (preferred for ietf)
> [email protected]
> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luby, Michael [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 8:09 AM
>> To: David Harrington; [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
>> 
>> Hi David, 
>> Yes, you are correct, this should be pushed forward.  I think the
> only
>> remaining issue is whether the FLUTE version number should be
>> incremented
>> due to backwards compatibility issues, or some argumentation
>> saying that a
>> version increment is not necessary because the backwards
> compatibility
>> issues are not there or not significant enough to justify.
>> Is there any
>> consensus on this final issue at this time?  Anybody want to provide
>> argumentation that we can justifiably keep this as version 1
>> (same as the
>> deprecated RFC3926), or should we just go along with the IESG
>> request to
>> make this Version 2?   We need to push this forward and
>> complete the work.
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/13/10 3:53 PM, "David Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Where are we with this document?
>>> I asked for an updated version number back in July.
>>> I'm not seeing much discussion on the ML.
>>> When can I expect a new revision that addresses the backwards
>>> compatibility issue?
>>> 
>>> David Harrington
>>> Director, IETF Transport Area
>>> [email protected] (preferred for ietf)
>>> [email protected]
>>> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
>>> 
>> 
>