Re: [Dime] [SPAM] RE: rfc3588bis version number

[Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis at nict.go.jp>]

> I'm still not seeing the problem: that seems to me to be pretty much the
> definition of "backward compatibility" ;-).  As long as both ways work, it
> shouldn't matter WRT interoperability & hopefully, legacy implementations
> would upgrade over time; in any case, v2 could deprecate the old behavior.
>   
I'd say "backward compatibility" if an implementation that supports
Diameter v2 can also support v1.
Since we are not changing the version number, it is very difficult for
the implementation to determine if it is running in "old" or "new"
Diameter.
I think that we *will* end up with different implementations of Diameter
that are not able to talk together... Which I'd like to avoid, at least
at the specification step.

Of course I may be missing experience here, I'm just talking from my
implementation point of view...

Thank you for your patience ^_^

Best regards,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)