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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

That's an interesting suggestion. If others think this solves any 
confusion, and doesn't create more - I can use this in my slide deck in YVR...

-j

At 01:58 PM 10/25/2013, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>Alice could have different family names, depending on what type of 
>entity she represents: Alice Kaplan and Alice Jones :)
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf 
>of James Polk [[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, 25 October 2013 9:51 PM
>To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Insipid] Next version of the backwards compatibility proposal
>
>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-comp 
> atibility-proposal-03.txt>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>https://www.ietf.or 
> g/mailman/listinfo/insipid
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >insipid mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> ><https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>https://www.ietf.org 
> /mailman/listinfo/insipid
>
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[e-mail]
><https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid