IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 22 October 2014 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8111A8A7F for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.793
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.107, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hwCN2IvIeqhz for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EEE31A0368 for <forces@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.160] ([84.187.40.143]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LjIel-1YGRUl099z-00dZbX; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:36 +0200
Message-ID: <54475DC7.4040402@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:27 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-forces-model-extension@tools.ietf.org, forces@ietf.org
References: <54475790.7000609@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <54475790.7000609@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:1hmGeBQtciLBi/dW1lNU8CC/0m8rMtg20P3dxvGXIgFwmw9f2k5 MJ950nG8wkD68m0/tdzwXNIFAK9Dv/Th6g3flUqczkXAeOgYF5k0tc72OFR3x+UXsnast0g NY9VOBYD7sEp2UIk2hzb2Qbu9WI2vwJx3bg4Er+bKUFq85JL+wKoV1EU3OqOlNrozYEcfdA ozNriuCbmJP7t8spnNkCg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/hEWTT71wnYSiJv_-zWN2H22fnTM
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:59:21 -0700
Cc: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@icann.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: [forces] draft-ietf-forces-model-extension
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:34:17 -0000

On 2014-10-22 09:06, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I was reviewing the namespace registration and have one question.
>
> The draft says
>
> "The changes introduced in this memo do not alter the protocol and
> retain backward compatibility with older LFB models."
>
> If this is the case, why is a new XML namespace even desirable?
>
> (Other than that, I'm sort of ok with the registration, but it strikes
> me that assigning a new namespace is a very bad idea).
>
> Best regards, Julian

Thinking about that some more: if a new XML namespace is used, the 
format definitively is *not* backwards compatible anymore (every piece 
of software that understood the old format will have to be rewritten).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email