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

Hi,

Given the number of changes that are not backwards compatible, I see
little chance that you'll get this through IESG approval without a
change of version number.

It will presumably be more expensive for implementers to undo all the
incompatible changes than to increment the version number.

I'm not sure what your colleague is going to look into that could make
a difference in this apparently simple tradeoff. 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luby, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:51 PM
> To: David Harrington; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
> 
> Since there hasn't been much response on this, except for a couple
of
> inquiries asking whether or not we really need to increment the
FLUTE
> revision number, I've asked a colleague to look into the 
> FLUTE backwards
> compatibility/version number issue in more detail, to look at 
> how the other
> SDOs that reference and use FLUTE RFC 3926, to help resolve 
> this once and
> for all.
> 
> Thanks, Mike Luby
> 
> 
> 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)
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
>