[Nut-upsuser] ISE review of I-D: deprecate command VER?

[Roger Price]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Jim Klimov via Nut-upsuser wrote:

> Notably, codebase currently does not mention a "PROTVER" - should the alias to 
> "NETVER" be made while we are at it? Any more similar changes I missed to 
> match proposed RFE'd protocol?

If possible it would be good to have PROTVER as an alias to NETVER.  This would 
match the I-D, and provide backward compatibility to 2.7.4.

>       Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> writes:
>
>       If we are heading down the RFC path, I think it's totally unreasonable
>       to have a protocol change more than once in a while, and doing so needs
>       to be coordinated with all users of the protocol, and the RFC updated.
>       So I'd hope that whatever version is on the master branch is what's
>       being documented.    It could be that the protocol has changed and the
>       version number hasn't, but that seems unlikely.

The I-D will give the protocol version as 1.3, and the NUT version as 2.8.0.

Roger