Subject: [Dime] capabilities update plan?

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:15:31 +0700

I've recently been reminded that a long time ago Victor Fajardo
[mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:

>> Hi Glen,
>> 
>> What do you think about the current proposal for capabilities update ?
>> Basically, we would:
>> 
>> a) Remove capabilities update completely from bis
>> b) write a new extension application for capabilities update
>> c) use new command code for (b) to negotiate the updates
>> 
>> Is it along the same lines you where commenting on ?
>
> Actually, I was just thinking about (c) + changing the base version number
so that peers could actually know that capabilities update was supported.
> I'm fine w/ the A0 b) c) approach, though; I'd even volunteer to work on
the draft ;-).
 
---------------------------------------

If I'm going to do something I guess that I'd better get started ;-).  My
question is, though, if this is actually the plan?  I notice that #1 has
taken place ;-) but are numbers 2 & 3 actually supposed to happen?

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:28:40 -0500

Hi Glen,

>> I'm fine w/ the A0 b) c) approach, though; I'd even volunteer to work on

So far, yes I think this is the current plan :) .. otherwise we would 
loose a functionality thats really useful

-- victor

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:28:27 +0700

> loose a functionality thats really useful

OK, I guess that I can edit the initial draft (contributions of text are
solicited :-).  Hannes, Dave: given the circumstances can we just cut to the
chase & just start w/draft-ietf-dime-whatever?