Re: [Insipid] Next version of the backwards compatibility proposal

James,

This draft is a little hard to follow because the examples all use 
Alice, Bob, Carol, but sometimes they are Kaplan implementations and 
sometimes they are Jones implementations. It would be easier to read if 
a name always corresponded to the same type of implementation. (E.g., 
Katy, Jan, Jerry.)

But since its transient, it may not be worth changing.

Otherwise, I think you make your point that other indicators aren't needed.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/24/13 6:26 PM, James Polk wrote:
> INSIPID
>
> Here is the next version of the proposal for backwards compatibility
> between the insipid and kaplan versions of the Session-ID header.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-insipid-bkwds-compatibility-proposal-03.txt
>
>
> There is a new section dealing with alternative proposals for a 'flag'
> to indicate which implementation an endpoint is, namely either a new
> option tag or a Contact header feature tag. I list the reasons why I
> don't think either will work.
>
> I'd like to get this draft discussed, as well as the two alternative
> flags on the list before we have our face2face in Vancouver on Monday
> evening, Nov 4th.
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>