[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Sep 10 01:51:26 UTC 2008
Pavel Simerda wrote:
> This would also affect the best practice in protocol changes and
> versioning. I personally believe this would provide more help than harm.
> For version 0, incompatible changes would by allright, for higher
> versions it would be sensible to add new features as optional (we
> still have discovery) and possibly, in the future, they would be
> marked REQUIRED all at once with a major protocol change.
> I believe the incompatible changes for higher versions would be rare.
That's what we strive for. Certainly once something is Final, and
usually when something is Draft. But I don't see exactly how the
namespace versioning helps us here -- what we need is more discipline
about standardization, not fancy namespacing. If the latter helps us be
more disciplined, that's great. If not, it's just confusing. IMHO.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards