I think the criterion should be: Would a reasonable and correct implementation need to have an IF statement, e.g., if(minor_number == 1) ...
I do not not think the criterion should be whether bumping the number breaks older implementations. >From the discussion, leaving the number alone seems fine. Richard On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > Yaron Sheffer writes: >> Or else, we could remove the sentence "For example, it might >> indicate the ability to process a newly defined notification >> message." > > That is example what changing minor number might mean. All current > conforming implementations already know how to process our newly > defined error notifications (they assume exchange failed), thus there > is no need to update minor number, as there is no new ability needed > for implementations to process those notifications. > > There is no reason to change that text. It does not require us to do > something, it is just example. > >> 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. > > Agree on that. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
