Re: [Insipid] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt

On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On 8/22/13 3:57 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:
>> Well it is documented in the minutes as something the WG agreed to.  See similar post:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00614.html
> 
> Then it ought to be recorded in someplace binding.
> A new requirement would be a good way.

If I recall correctly, that was proposed but the WG felt it wasn't proper to add it to the requirements doc because of certain potential feasibility unknowns relative to interworking scenarios between old and new Sess-IDs.  It was instead used as a conditional to WG adoption of the solution doc and it was added as a new section to that solution doc.

Based on what I've seen, there is enough strong support for backwards compatibility that I am certain they will not let us forget its priority. ;-)

--G

> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --G
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/22/13 1:30 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It should also explain that documeny has the responsibility to assure backwards compatibility with this document.
>>> 
>>> AFAIK the WG has no *responsibility* to assure backwards compatibility.
>>> Its not mentioned in the charter, or in the requirements.
>>> 
>>> IMO its a "nice to have", nothing more.
>>> 
>>> 	Thanks,
>>> 	Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> insipid mailing list
>>> insipid@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 