My apologies if we've covered this already; I think I may have mentioned it in a larger email and it got glossed over.
In at least two documents we have phrases like "a compliant v1 implementation MUST NOT expect this [version field] to be 0 (i.e., v1)." The word "expect" seems weird to me, somehow -- in a universe where v1 is the only thin widely deployed, we should "expect" that responses will use that version, in that it is the most likely occurrence. What we are trying to prevent is the case where implementations assume that the version field (or really, the version of the message they are processing) matches the version of the implementation without validating that assumption. Do we want to say instead something like "compliant v1 implementations MUST validate the version field while processing messages and handle inputs from versions other than v1" or "a compliant v1 implementation MUST NOT assume this field is 0 (i.e., v1) without validating the version field"? Is this too trivial an issue to worry about? -Ben _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
