<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/21/22 15:08, Greg Troxel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmi4k3r4fny.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:uhlar@fantomas.sk"><uhlar@fantomas.sk></a> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 20.03.22 16:02, Roger Price wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE):
The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a
protocol. The best example of such a failure is the browser version
field in HTTP. A complete disaster. You should warn against use of
this command, or even better, deprecate it.
I was not aware of the disaster in the browser version field, but I
will warn against use of VER, and deprecate it, if you agree.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Isn't this designed for announcing protocol version for compatibility?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Protocol version is one thing and should be defined by the RFC. All
implementations of the protocol should advertise the same version.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That is
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-protver">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-protver</a>
...<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmi4k3r4fny.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Software type/version of the implementation is something else.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>... versus
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-ver">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-07.html#name-ver</a>
which is a different beast</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmi4k3r4fny.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Yes, everything may be from nut sources, but having a protocol RFC is
about moving from "the protocol is defined by the code" to "the protocol
is defined by the spec".</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I agree with that. But I still see no problem in advertising the
software version. After all, each time I boot I see:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mar 20 22:19:03 wolfy3 kernel: Linux version
3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mockbuild@kbuilder.bsys.centos.org">mockbuild@kbuilder.bsys.centos.org</a>)
(gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44) (GCC) ) #1 SMP
Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I know not only the kernel version and distribution but even the
compiler version that was in use. Which, incidentally, is
important in some contexts<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>