Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15.txt

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Job Snijders wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:33:07PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> > While we are at it, I would like to again raise the suggestion to
> > not use a version 1 here but rather stick to 0 and use a different
> > content type OID. The older and newer definitions are not
> > compatible, so a new OID feels more appropriate than a version
> > change.  
> 
> I can see your argument, but I'm not sure there is clear consensus to
> request a fresh content-type OID, and there are counter-arguments too.
> 
> In the past the ASPA profile definition has been updated without
> cranking the version or content-type OID. Some argue we are in a phase
> of 'experimentation' (since the internet-draft isn't published as
> RFC), where some incompatibility with older revisions of the draft is
> to be expected and of no concern.

I’d be okay with leaving the version at 0 and using the current OID as
well. The old-format objects will fail to be decoded either way, so it
doesn’t really make a difference in practice. Depending on how the
parser works, they may be rejected even before you get to the version
check, too.

I’m a bit worried with having version 1 in a newly published
standard. It’ll be the only one that does that and it is very easy to
miss because it really is just a single digit in the text below the
grammar. Ask me how I know ...

  -- Martin