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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for reviewing and commenting Paul

At 10:36 AM 10/25/2013, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>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.)

I thought about doing this (where one 'name', e.g., Alice) is always 
a certain version of implementation, but it didn't make it into this rev.


>But since its transient, it may not be worth changing.
>
>Otherwise, I think you make your point that other indicators aren't needed.

Thanks for understanding (and agreeing  ;-) )

James


>         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
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid