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

The XML in the draft is NOT carried over the wire.  It is a definition 
of structures which is referenced by the protocol carried over the wire.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/23/14, 8:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-10-23 13:51, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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.
>
> Now I'm very confused. The XML defined by the draft is not carried over
> the wire?
>
>> 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.
>
> Right. So this is *not* backwards compatible. A message using the 1.1
> namespace will not be processable by a recipient that expects the 1.0
> 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.
>
> You could, but it simply means that you need to write code that knows
> about both namespaces. (I understand that it's not hard to do, but it is
> very different from having nothing to do).
>
>> 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?
>
> If the rule for the 1.0 namespace is to ignore unknown elements then
> indeed it doesn't make any sense to define a new namespace.
>
>> How does one detect there's new extensions?
>
> By inspecting the element name and see whether it's known?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> forces mailing list
> forces@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces