Sorry on my second question Im not referring new capabilities in terms
of new TLV's but to "new message types".
So Q 2 below now reads as: If in the future we want and need new message
types (for example) for ANCP, then another version/sub-version would be
required etc.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor at rogers.com]
Sent: July 29, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh
Cc: ancp at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ANCP] ANCP Protocol Versioning
Alan Kavanagh wrote:
What about future versions that maybe defined??? It makes perfect
sense to do that now than later. Lets agree on the facts because you
just don't seem to get it, and i didn't even attend the meeting. We
are going to make the versions and sub-version noted in the draft to
3.2, agree?
(simple yes or no).
[PTT] Yes
If in the future we want and need new capabilities for ANCP, then
another version/sub-version would be noted in another RFC, agree
(simple yes or no).
[PTT] No.