Re: [dcp] Protocol Version number

Mark Handley <mjh@icir.org> Thu, 20 June 2002 19:21 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11048 for <dcp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA14517 for dcp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:22:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14498; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14463 for <dcp@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:22:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from aardvark.icir.org (aardvark.icir.org [192.150.187.20]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11042 for <dcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from aardvark.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aardvark.icir.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g5KJMPk82954; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjh@aardvark.icir.org)
From: Mark Handley <mjh@icir.org>
X-Organisation: ICIR
To: Alex Audu <Alex.Audu@alcatel.com>
cc: dcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dcp] Protocol Version number
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:11:29 CDT." <3D1228E1.A5816439@alcatel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:22:25 -0700
Message-ID: <82952.1024600945@aardvark.icir.org>
Sender: dcp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dcp-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Datagram Control Protocol <dcp.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dcp@ietf.org

>I noticed the DCP header portion is mising  a protocol version field,
>though section 4.6 makes reference
>to "The version of DCCP".  Can we add a version field in the protocol
>header?

It seems to be a waste of bits.  There are a number of ways to evolve
protocols.  

 - If the packet formats need to change enough so that receivers or
   middleboxes would be confused, then you might as well use a different
   IP protocol number.  

 - If the change is minor, then it's most easily done in a backward
   compatible way by adding a feature that is negotiated.  

 - If the change is not so minor, a non-negotiable feature could be
   sent in the DCP request.

 - Finally, there are four bits in the DCP common header that are
   marked as MUST BE ZERO for this version of DCP.  If we decide at some
   future point that we really need a version number, between one and
   four of these bits can be designated as a version number field.

Neither TCP nor UDP has a version field.  I think time has shown this
to be a reasonable decision.

Cheers,
	Mark

_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list: dcp@ietf.org
archives: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp
project: http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/