https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/issues/43
>> Section 4.3.2, paragraph 1
>> With the current extension model, an extension with a backwards-incompatible
>> change is indistinguishable from a new, unrelated extension. Implementers
>> of such changes should consider the following:
> This might be true for now, but with the versioning (see my comment to 4.3)
> it won't be true in all cases. Assuming Semantic Versioning there might be a
> major version of same extension which per definition would be backwards
> incompatible.
[JS] That’s an interesting point. Since the “current extension model” does not
include versioning, either we should clarify this phrase further, or
pre-emptively factor in versioning for this recommendation.
[TH] I think 'current extension model' is clear enough here, but one way to
address this would be to change the third point from:
```
whether the extension itself should define how versioning is
handled within the extension documentation
```
to:
```
whether the extension itself should define how versioning is
handled within the extension documentation (which may be by
reference to a separate generic versioning RFC)
```
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
