[Nut-upsuser] I-D progress update - ISE comments - NETVER vs PROTVER

Greg Troxel gdt at lexort.com
Tue Apr 19 12:06:50 BST 2022

Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> writes:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 19.04.22 08:56, Roger Price wrote:
>>> The problem: the I-D uses PROTVER rather than NETVER, however 2.8.0
>>> only supports NETVER.
>>> The argument in favour of PROTVER is that the command is not asking
>>> for the version of the _network_.  It is asking for the version of
>>> the _protocol_.
>>> The argument in favour of NETVER is that it is currrently
>>> implemented in 2.8.0.
>>> Should the I-D revert to NETVER?   I will follow whatever the list decides.
>> can NETVER be declared as obsolete alternative to PROTVER?
> If PROTVER was also implemented, then yes, but if PROTVER is not
> implemented, then there would be a divergence between the I-D and NUT
> 2.8.0, which I want to avoid.

2.8.0 doesn't exist yet.  I suspect Jim would be amenable to making a
change to PROTVER as primary with NETVAR as a deprecated alias, and then
we can have the spec say what it ought to.  It seems like a small code
change and rolling another rc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20220419/69e7da2b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Nut-upsuser mailing list