Re: [forces] draft-ietf-forces-model-extension

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 2014-10-22 14:54, Haleplidis Evangelos wrote:
>>
>> Greetings Julian,
>>
>> I'm a little confused on why you think there is no backwards
>> compatibility.
>>
>> LFB definitions that use the 1.0 namespace are valid in the 1.1 namespace.
>
>
> Unless I'm missing something: no, they are not.
>
> Can you provide a 1.0 example, and show how it is valid according to the 1.1
> schema?
>

I am trying to understand the issue.
There is no namespace version carried in the protocol. And there is no
changes in the protocol encoding as the result of the new namespace.
IOW, it does not affect anything from the protocol perspective.

I can see a challenge with toolkits that look at the new namespace vs old.
Old toolkits wont be able to understand the semantics of the new namespace.
New toolkits should be able to understand the semantics of both old and
new extensions - if the author chooses to. If i understood Evangelos
correctly: He is saying the content inside the new namespace is basically
backward compatible. If i understood you correctly, you are saying the
moment you say it is version 1.1 you cant talk about the content inside
and compare it with 1.0.
All the new extensions introduced are optional. And correctly written
s/ware will log/ignore/bailout on extensions it doesnt support.
Are you suggesting we keep the version at 1.0?
How does one detect there's new extensions?

cheers,
jamal