[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 17:57:33 PDT 2020

On 28-Mar-20 11:44, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27-Mar-20 16:48, Joseph Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> Draft-tsvwg-udp-options - does what?
>>>>>    - it extends UDP with options
>>>>>    - but it also alters UDP to prohibit UDP length values that 786 allows
>>>>> Is that extends or emends?
>>>> Both. Why would it be a problem to use both tags if they both apply?
>>> What’s the point? Why the nuance?
>> Personally, I don't think that the difference between"You need to write some new code."
>> and
>> "You need go and fix your old code."
>> is just a nuance. Product managers may view these as two totally
>> different matters with different business implications.
> Right.  Adding features means just adding code.  Right.  

Ultimately, yes. If the base protocol has hooks for extensibility and the base code is well designed, that is. But regardless, in corporate software, it may mean having the software touched by the team in Banaglore vs the team in North Carolina, or whatever. These really are different things.

> Must be sunny there.  

Yes, thanks, it is!


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list