Robert Story wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:46 -0400 G. wrote: > GSM> also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated > versions > GSM> (i.e., +errata). > > How many of the RFCs contained errata?
about 6-7...I didn't count exactly > > GSM> I think like anything, we would do our best to keep everything as updated > GSM> as possible... > > I think this needs to be a bit more explicit. > > What do others think of shipping patched RFCs vs shipping the stock RFCs + > errata notes? There are a few options: > > 1) stock RFCs + single errata file > (rfcXXXX.txt; ERRATA/README.errata/?) > > 2) stock RFCS + individual errata > (rfcXXXX.txt; rfcXXXX.errata) > > 3) patched RFCs + original RFCs > (rfcXXXX.txt; rfcXXXX.orig) > > 4) patched RFCS + README explaining that files are patched; url for originals > this all seems like overkill... the benefit of shipping the RFCs is mostly convenience as they can be retrieved elsewhere...of course we should strive to have this element of the documentation be as accurate updated as possible...why would anyone want the original vs. the patched? ...and if they care terribly much...the only way to be sure is go back to http://www.ietf.org/rfc and do the diff... When the ietf publishes them...the contain all errata to date no? I guess 4) is the least painful... -G ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
