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

[Theo Buehler <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:58:10AM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> 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 am also happy with reusing the OID and leaving the version at 0.

As an implementor of software targeting end users I don't want to (and
won't) support anything but the final version.