Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > At the interim last Friday we found that we should not mix the > question on the references in the draft and that of the ‘e’ in the > charter.
> For the specific case of the ‘e’, we discussed that the group will not
> stop brutally at the end of 2015 and that we really work on TSCH, so
> we could remove the ‘e’.
> This is a call for consensus. The proposal on the table is effectively
> to remove the ‘e’; if you disagree please let us know now.
I still do not understand IEEE referencing rules.
I found one of Pascal's comments interesting. If I understood, he said:
* If we reference IEEE document without a year (or I guess, letter), and
IEEE
breaks something in a future that we depend upon, then we would have a
basis for complaint.
* If we reference IEEE document with a year, then we have no basis for a
complaint, as they aren't changing/breaking the old spec.
But, I'm unclear what it means to reference "802.15.4" today, when
802.15.4-2015 is not yet published (Auguest 2015, said Pat).
I therefore think it appropriate to drop the "e" only when the -2015 is out,
so let's do that in November. At which point, my question about -year vs
not year might have a different answer.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
