IPP> MOD - RE: Status codes

IPP> MOD - RE: Status codes

IPP> MOD - RE: Status codes

JK Martin jkm at underscore.com
Fri Apr 25 15:35:45 EDT 1997

I've remained pretty mute on this issue, but since Carl-Uno has
become so passionate in this matter, I'll add my 2 cents worth:

> I am still in disagreement with Tom about protocol version numbers - sorry
> Tom.
> If we want to add new operations or deprecicate older ones (over the next
> 20 - 50 years say) or make more attributes mandatory, we will need version
> numbers for the protocol, even if we have a flexible schema for adding
> attribute types and values.
> Servers usually implement several version numbers for a cut-over period
> that can be pretty long.  
> History has shown that any group that has omitted this from their first
> version of a protocol has regretted it, especially if the protocol was
> commonly implemented in the marketplace (which we all assume will happen
> with IPP :-).  Not having this error will mean that we paint ourselves into
> a corner.  I feel strongly about this.
> Hence, I support the idea that we should keep a version number error, for
> possible future mismatches betwen client and server versions.

I couldn't agree more.  For every network protocol I have developed in
the past that didn't contain some sort of version identification, I
have seriously regretted it.  And precisely for the reasons so well
stated by Carl-Uno above.

Version information is good.  Version information is your friend.

Just keep the implementation simple, concise and succinct, please.


--  JK Martin               |  Email:   jkm at underscore.com          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --

More information about the Ipp mailing list