Got it. This is very good feedback. Many thanks.
-andy On 12/12/25 3:58 AM, Pawel Kowalik wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 11.12.25 22:02, Andy Newton wrote: >> Just to be clear, are you suggesting evolving an extension without an >> evolution signal should be allowed? In other words, not MUST NOT and not NOT >> RECOMMENDED? > > Yes, not MUST NOT and not NOT RECOMMENDED. > > But RECOMMEND using versioning extension and MUST assure clients do not > break, whatever it means if not yet enough specified in STD 95. > >> My opinion (and just my opinion), we could do NOT RECOMMENDED by saying it >> should only be done in circumstances where there is not enough time to use >> other methods or where the impacted clients will be known to be updated. In >> other words, I am trying to find a scenario where this is the only >> reasonable approach. > > I don't think the bar shall be set that high to say you must do it unless not > technically feasible. > > My point is that there should not be hard dependency put on the extension to > say, that the client MUST also implement and understand versioning extension. > Versioning shall be an additional useful signalling, but not a prerequisite > to assure clients won't break. > > Kind Regards, > Pawel > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
