IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Message Type/Version Identifiers

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 19 December 2014 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2B31ACCEB for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTdgApyH2xb5 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E06A51ACC8F for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id w7so1303705lbi.16 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NkfinFaVxTJRrbN9xIKdMWf72ew3IpDMk/ttkkjA0Oc=; b=fiIwyQi8j7jNdJ2aJD6fnsYHd2/j7x6xZIbzQsShsfJPM2o7sqwYQzkvgNNWJafC2M niTMduXF46HynK4va74bO96yMBGLZhktJ9ZZf1QfnOS+NClYUMGvZ570WNx36ZTrlZ4t fdEdfKcnBTUYVpl8mpNfjPEFwOtKp9InOgibNuQQOwJR1w8smM+Ns08q2BhUtv4LdB/h QK4w1mkT9tUh/TYHpRQ4/GL2l2/fEjBekVev8InYe3+CwJ9+8HqOC2KMo8B4lhhAI0n3 QwkBrwP6XRVnKGCJtWq6qgwsAHy9Y1Kp2QzOgf0BAGmEtYS7EpZ447lKFm77a7xKsSqT u68A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknymDpZC6a2WYYxDILE6J6OxYL5qWETkwyRQUOp7Sqo+6eN6+liZbMYs09HLuCQ6cUvF+n
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.101.100 with SMTP id ff4mr9160286lbb.94.1419014053422; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.12.215 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:34:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWAJXdg4WXf68sQmEgkHtb8rZ+9aqmJ1g950qcSds=hSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5492B595.6020605@gmail.com> <CABkgnnX2PEfJZo+fJiUwTFM4yOzK-ME45fTk_vhN9mRMzzv74A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgW+yY4xmqs-099Tkojwnovd_u=95AHygjxqs_kDxujpw@mail.gmail.com> <5493B286.4020001@gmail.com> <CABkgnnWAJXdg4WXf68sQmEgkHtb8rZ+9aqmJ1g950qcSds=hSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:34:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgR+1P-Y2w82_LvuEwYcJVOh6x5ykUxw9BuFzGaW1MLJEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135e2989601c8050a95f4b8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/lQJJ_azS-dvp90mZuH81ZJB8vd4
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Message Type/Version Identifiers
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:34:16 -0000

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 21:07, Anders Rundgren
> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just for the record, service discovery will in your opinion eliminate the
> > need for explicit version information at the message object level
> (because
> > this is
> > really what I'm asking for)?
> >
> > I prefer URIs but of course traditional minor.major works as well.
>
> I think that you are both over-engineering it.  Identify this as
> "acme".  If you need to make changes that aren't backward compatible,
> call it "acmi".
>

And then, "acmii", "acmiii", "acmiv", ...?  :)

I think the idea of separating things by URI is the right track.  That
punts the versioning question to discovery/configuration.

--Richard




>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email