To:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:14:03 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<C7833F34.37007%jgould@verisign.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>,EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:29:40PM -0500, James Gould wrote: > Bernie, > > We have considered this in prior discussions on the list. The consensus was > to keep backward compatibility by keeping the version number the same. The > updated draft is additive to the original RFC, so according to the AD this > was an acceptable approach. As a matter of procedure, I think it's important to be careful with that word "consensus". There's no working group here, and no chair to declare consensus. I'm not at all sure there was consensus: that was my objection, too, but I said that as a party who didn't have to live with the results I wouldn't press to hard on this issue. I still think it's a serious problem: if we're not going to use the version number to be the indicator of the version of the specification, what's it for? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se