To:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Anthony.Kirby@nominet.org.uk
Date:
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:54:57 +0000
DKIM-Signature:
v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Anthony.Kirby@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1264506899; x=1296042899; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Anthony.Kirby@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[i etf-provreg]=20XML=20Schema=20versioning=20in=204310bis |Date:=20Tue,=2026=20Jan=202010=2011:54:57=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<OFE76855D2.E08B4959-ON802576B7.003ACFE9-8 02576B7.004174E2@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20EPP=20Provreg=20<i etf-provreg@cafax.se>,=0D=0A=09owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.s e|MIME-Version:=201.0|In-Reply-To:=20<4B5EA16B.9090402@pu blisher.de>|References:=20<C7838A86.3702D%jgould@verisign .com>=20<4B5EA16B.9090402@publisher.de>; bh=5/TMf0M3AoYz2/tryt/pvX87GwcVkWfMJofbYpZ9ar0=; b=3UuHoVMP8k7Yt75aSLH2XWWicrkOq6UOx0aJQSsh3UI5kKLSgyvDb2Hx JnUOz/MIxzQfDKvTQ0Bdpsvu2RcLhGEkKZUfHYgzmGXJyoiISZmUk4zxS n5TcphXYw9UWosV;
DomainKey-Signature:
s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To: X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date:X-MIMETrack:MIME-Version: Content-type; b=XrgG+vDMAI7rQnksWxWuLAWyAAXjWEdcjL6t05yJwzXeppk/DTypQQdX whzYqYxIDWGmb423yttda3M1In4id7xUxiLdSDV2nlsmtqJAcbttpDn6a 9ZYB9KsGWldYsH1;
In-Reply-To:
<4B5EA16B.9090402@publisher.de>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis
> Ulrich Wisser <liste@publisher.de> wrote on 26/01/2010 08:01:47: > Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis > > in this case I have to agree with James. We discussed changing the URI > and came to the conclusion that changing the URI will break old clients > without any need to do so. > > But let's have a look on the alternatives: > > 1. Server supports only the "old" 1.0 > - no changes on client or server > 2. Server supports only the "new" 1.0 > - only changes on the server side needed > 3. Server supports both > - only changes on the server side needed That's OK for the server, but thinking about it from the client's point of view: How does a client know whether it should use the "old" or "new" format? Having the server advertise the protocol version in the <hello> makes it possible to write a client that can handle both. Anthony Kirby -- Nominet UK - http://www.nominet.org.uk -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se