Or else, we could remove the sentence "For example, it might indicate the
ability to process a newly defined notification message." I thinking bumping
the minor version number would be extremely risky. We know that everybody can
ignore unknown notifications. We don't know that everybody can deal correctly
with version number, simply because this has been tested less frequently.
Thanks,
Yaron
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul
Hoffman
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 0:21
To: IPsecme WG
Subject: [IPsec] Issue #130: Do we need to bump the minor version number?
Section 1.7 (Differences Between RFC 4306 and This Document) states:
The protocol described in this document retains the same major
version number (2) and minor version number (0) as was used in RFC
4306. That is, the version number is *not* changed from RFC 4306.
Section 2.5 (Version Numbers and Forward Compatibility) states
The minor
version number indicates new capabilities, and MUST be ignored by a
node with a smaller minor version number, but used for informational
purposes by the node with the larger minor version number. For
example, it might indicate the ability to process a newly defined
notification message. The node with the larger minor version number
would simply note that its correspondent would not be able to
understand that message and therefore would not send it.
New notifies have been added to the bis draft. Is a bump in the minor
number warranted? Is there a down side to bumping the minor number?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
