> A similar issue was discussed, and a patch was proposed in [1].
> That thread might be worth reading.
Thanks. I will take a look at it.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> Add an example? I like the wording as-is, though I can see your point. I
> wouldn’t expect the returned value to be a fragment of a version in this
> context so minor just emphasizes that the client is applying a filter on
> the major version it supports. I’d be ok with removing “minor” altoge
On 2025/07/05 19:30, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In the docs (54.7. Message Formats) NegotiateProtocolVersion message's
third field is described as below:
"Newest minor protocol version supported by the server for the major
protocol version requested by the client. "
From the description initially
On Saturday, July 5, 2025, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> In the docs (54.7. Message Formats) NegotiateProtocolVersion message's
> third field is described as below:
>
> "Newest minor protocol version supported by the server for the major
> protocol version requested by the client. "
>
> From the descript
