Subject: Re: [Simple] Sessmatch: Proposed option-tag text [was: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-10 Issue]

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 20:57:06 +0200

2011/4/14 Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>:
>  NOTE: The reason for omitting the 'sessmatch' option-tag is to provide
>  backward compability in networks where the MSRP entities are based on
>  an earlier version of the sessmatch specification, in which usage of
>  the option-tag was not defined.

Hi, I don't fully understand why a draft should be backward compliant
with a previous version of the same draft.

Bad luck if there are commercial products implementing a previous
version of the draft. Nobody should trade products based on a changing
specification (when it's still a draft).

Just wondering. Thanks for any comment or explanation.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 21:26:06 +0200

Hi,

>specification (when it's still a draft).

I agree. But, sometimes it takes a (too) long time to finish a draft.

Anyway, the note has been removed from the latest version of the draft, that I submitted a while ago.

Regards,

Christer