[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles

Pavel Simerda pavlix at pavlix.net
Wed Sep 10 14:43:44 UTC 2008

I believe it both helps with the discipline (a little bit)
and helps to maintain graceful transitions in cases we fail.

Furthermore it simplifies (sometimes allows at all) maintaining
compatibility if used (very) carefully and with as little major
version transitions as possible.


On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:51:26 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

> 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. :)
> /psa


Pavel Šimerda
Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net

More information about the Standards mailing list