On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Jim Klimov via Nut-upsuser wrote:
Notably, codebase currently does not mention a "PROTVER" - should the alias to
"NETVER" be made while we are at it? Any more similar changes I missed to
match proposed RFE'd protocol?
If possible it would be good to have PROTVER as an alias to NETVER. This would
match the I-D, and provide backward compatibility to 2.7.4.
Manuel Wolfshant <[email protected]> writes:
If we are heading down the RFC path, I think it's totally unreasonable
to have a protocol change more than once in a while, and doing so needs
to be coordinated with all users of the protocol, and the RFC updated.
So I'd hope that whatever version is on the master branch is what's
being documented. It could be that the protocol has changed and the
version number hasn't, but that seems unlikely.
The I-D will give the protocol version as 1.3, and the NUT version as 2.8.0.
Roger
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
