Re: [MEDIACTRL] Does a Control Package name include the version number

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Tue, 20 July 2010 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F5A3A6BE1 for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Km7SxO-cfbne for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtplq01.aruba.it (smtplq-out14.aruba.it [62.149.158.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C6E493A6BE3 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31323 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jul 2010 05:41:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.aruba.it) (62.149.128.201) by smtplq01.aruba.it with SMTP; 20 Jul 2010 05:41:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 20180 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jul 2010 05:41:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rainpc) (lorenzo@meetecho.com@79.53.156.180) by smtp1.ad.aruba.it with SMTP; 20 Jul 2010 05:41:44 -0000
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:36:18 +0200
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Message-Id: <20100720073618.2635d9f4.lorenzo@meetecho.com>
In-Reply-To: <E809E5ED-C484-44BC-98BB-417CE44D0B85@standardstrack.com>
References: <4C34D9EB.5010707@ns-technologies.com> <E809E5ED-C484-44BC-98BB-417CE44D0B85@standardstrack.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: smtp1.ad.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: smtplq01.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
Cc: Saint-Andre Peter <stpeter@stpeter.im>, mediactrl@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Does a Control Package name include the version number
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:42:58 -0000

Backwards compatiility is a nice fairy tale, but there are cases when a versioning may actually work (e.g., if a 1.1 only has additions to a 1.0 and no modification). Is it ok if we just say that the /mumble.foo may or may not appear, but if it doesn't it implies 1.0? This looks safer to me.

L.


On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:18:11 -0400
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> wrote:

> I say (as an individual) "Nay, nay": Packages do whatever they want.  Backwards compatibility is a nice fairy tale, but not anything we really care about.  I offer packages are arbitrary, opaque names. If they *happen* to end with /1.0 or /9.2993, great.  However, I would offer the protocol should not care or impose any semantics about what the /mumble.foo means.
> 
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Chris Boulton wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > As part of our IESG review the following has been identified:
> > 
> > Section 8.1
> > states:
> > The package name MUST also register a
> > version number for the package which is separated with a '/' symbol
> > e.g. package_name/1.0.
> > This could be taken to mean that (1) "package_name/1.0" is the complete
> > package name or (2) "package_name" is the mere package name and "1.0" is
> > the package version number. The ABNF appears to imply (1) because it says:
> > 
> > Packages = "Packages:" SP package-name *(COMMA package-name)
> > package-name = alpha-num-token
> > alpha-num-token = ALPHANUM 3*31alpha-num-tokent-char
> > alpha-num-tokent-char = ALPHANUM / "." / "-" / "+" / "%" / "=" / "/"
> > 
> > This appears to allow "/" in the "mere package name". If so, how will
> > software parse the complete package name to determine the package
> > version number? Will it parse the complete package name from the end and
> > split the name at the first "/" character it finds? Can the version
> > number include a "/" character? The ABNF does not appear to disallow that.
> > 
> > 
> > What do we want to do with version?  I would suggest that we soften the MUST requirement.
> > 
> > Chris.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Chris Boulton
> > CTO & Co-founder
> > NS-Technologies
> > m: +44.7876.476681
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEDIACTRL mailing list
> > MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> > Supplemental Web Site:
> > http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> 


-- 
Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>