Re: [OSPF] draft-acee-ospfv3-lsa-extend-00

[Anton Smirnov <[e-mail]>]

    Hi Acee,
    introducing non-backward-compatible revision of protocol is very big 
deal both for vendors and customers.
    What I am vigorously objecting is approach of developing 
non-backward-compatible protocol revision with "minimum of changes" 
being the primary requirement. This almost guarantees end result to be 
inefficient.

    Protocol *extension* must be designed to be backward compatible even 
if that makes it very complex.
    That complexity should be addressed by major protocol *revision*. 
Work on major protocol revision should start from writing requirements 
document - and this stage alone should probably last couple of years.


 > Additionally,
 > history has proven that more focused work has a better chance of
 > reaching fruition.

That's why burning need for new feature should not be mentioned while 
discussing non-backward-compatible protocol extension. Latter should be 
developed on its own.


Anton


On 05/04/2013 11:31 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hi Anton,
> If you look at the drafts Fred recently refreshed, I think you'll have to
> agree that we have a burning requirement for this extension. Additionally,
> history has proven that more focused work has a better chance of reaching
> fruition. As for backward compatibly, it is possible to do something akin
> to RFC 1793 and the original unpublished version of this draft contained
> these mechanisms. However, it is not clear that the complexity justifies
> the mechanisms - we'll leave that for the WG to decide.
> Acee
> P.S. To quote a philosopher of the late 20th century, "You can't always
> get what you want. But if you try sometimes well you might find you get
> what you need."
>