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

Roger Price roger at rogerprice.org
Tue Apr 19 13:38:53 BST 2022

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Greg Troxel wrote:

> 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.

Jim, Is this change to PROTVER possible for 2.8.0?, or should I keep NETVER?

More information about the Nut-upsuser mailing list