Agreed. A new document should be a complete replacement and represent the full text recommendation.
Owen > On Mar 13, 2015, at 07:37, George, Wes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a >> sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor >> responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or >> revised BCOP. >> >> Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP should get a new number and the previous >> revision should be marked “obsoleted by XXXXX” and it’s document status >> should reflect “Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX” for all previous >> revisions. The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not >> been obsoleted > > A note of caution: > Please don't exactly replicate the RFC series's model where the existing > document can only be updated by new documents but is not always completely > replaced/obsoleted such that the reader is left following the trail of > breadcrumbs across multiple documents trying to figure out what the union > of the two (or 3 or 14) "current" documents actually means in terms of the > complete guidance. If what you're suggesting is actually a full > replacement of the document so that the new version is complete and > standalone, I think that's better, but really I don't understand why these > can't be more living documents (like a Wiki) instead of just using the > server as a public dropbox for static files. The higher the drag for > getting updates done, the more likely they are to go obsolete and be less > useful to the community. > > Thanks, > > Wes George > > > Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I > have no control over it. > ----------- > > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout.
