[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 10 12:51:18 PST 2014

On 2/10/2014 12:39 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with: "use the v2 tool for formatting docs in the
> v2 schema, use the v3 tool for formatting docs in the v3 schema, use
> the v3 schema for all new docs".  The users here can handle that.

No.  That's an inappropriate requirement, when growing a system, and it 
has a long history of coming back to bite folks in the ass.

>> So I suggest declaring backward compatibility an explcit requirement, just
>> so no one else gets confused.
> I'd rather have a wart-less, clean v3.

It's true that the real world is ugly and awkward.

>> Might even want to say that the conversion tool is for those who happen to
>> want to upgrade, but that it isn't required.
> If you have an explicit backwards-compat requirement why should there
> be a conversion tool?

I'm a bit confused about that too.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list