Nut upsuser - Apr 2022 - I-D progress update - ISE comments - NETVER vs PROTVER

On 19.04.22 08:56, Roger Price wrote:
>I have received comments from the ISE (Independent Submissions Editor) 
>on NETVER/PROTVER and I would would like to get the list's consensus 
>on how to proceed.
>
>NETVER vs PROTVER
>-----------------
>
>The problem: the I-D uses PROTVER rather than NETVER, however 2.8.0 
>only supports NETVER.
>
>The argument in favour of PROTVER is that the command is not asking 
>for the version of the _network_.  It is asking for the version of the 
>_protocol_.
>
>The argument in favour of NETVER is that it is currrently implemented in
2.8.0.
>
>Should the I-D revert to NETVER?   I will follow whatever the list decides.
can NETVER be declared as obsolete alternative to PROTVER?

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 19.04.22 08:56, Roger Price wrote:
>> 
>> The problem: the I-D uses PROTVER rather than NETVER, however 2.8.0
only
>> supports NETVER.
>> 
>> The argument in favour of PROTVER is that the command is not asking for
the
>> version of the _network_.  It is asking for the version of the
_protocol_.
>> 
>> The argument in favour of NETVER is that it is currrently implemented
in
>> 2.8.0.
>> 
>> Should the I-D revert to NETVER?   I will follow whatever the list
decides.
>
> can NETVER be declared as obsolete alternative to PROTVER?
If PROTVER was also implemented, then yes, but if PROTVER is not implemented, 
then there would be a divergence between the I-D and NUT 2.8.0, which I want to 
avoid.

Roger