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

Chris Boulton <chris@ns-technologies.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@ns-technologies.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 343A93A6824 for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.344
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.605, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 CGwKqDKDYTBW for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.qbytedns.net (host.qbytedns.net [89.16.176.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB4D3A6B23 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.171.3.120] (port=50859 helo=[192.168.2.5]) by host.qbytedns.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <chris@ns-technologies.com>) id 1Ogze6-0001iC-1G; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:34:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4C5AAFB1.508@ns-technologies.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:33:53 +0100
From: Chris Boulton <chris@ns-technologies.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
References: <4C34D9EB.5010707@ns-technologies.com> <E809E5ED-C484-44BC-98BB-417CE44D0B85@standardstrack.com> <20100720073618.2635d9f4.lorenzo@meetecho.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100720073618.2635d9f4.lorenzo@meetecho.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080700010208020009050004"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.qbytedns.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ns-technologies.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:34:11 -0000

I am getting the consensus that version should be removed from section 
8.1.  Package names are still free to include version numbers at there 
discretion.  Objections speak up or the change will be made.  We will 
need to check IF this has impact on the packages and how they are now 
versioned.

Chris.


On 20/07/2010 06:36, Lorenzo Miniero wrote:
> 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
>>
>>      
>
>    


-- 
Chris Boulton
CTO & Co-founder
NS-Technologies <http://www.ns-technologies.com>
m: +44.7876.476681