>#10: Should not encourage use of "old" encoding
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> Reporter: martin.thomson@andrew.com | Owner:
>
> Type: enhancement | Status: new
>
> Priority: major | Milestone:
> draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
>Component: rfc3825bis | Version:
>
> Severity: - | Keywords:
>
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> When creating a new version of 3825, we need to make a statement about how
> to interoperate with the old version.
>
> Suggestion: permit receipt of the old encoding, but (strongly) discourage
> the sending of it.
>
> That is:
>
> Implementations of this specification MUST support receipt of an option
> that includes a version of 0. Implementations of this specification MUST
> not create or send an option with a version of 0.
I strongly disagree with this goal. There may be configurations that
understand perfectly well what sending a version 0 Option to a client
means. This should be a local configuration decision. I don't have
an issue with adding text providing guidance to prefer that the v1
Option be sent (and why - and not just "cuz it's better"), but we
cannot prevent v0 from being sent, which Martin's "MUST" above
explicitly states.
>--
>Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/10>
>geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
