Hi -
The situation with Internet-Drafts is what motivated this text in the
first place, so
I think it is important to retain that information. However, it seems
to me that
the "i.e." is too limiting, and should be replaced with an "e.g.".
Randy
On 8/11/2016 2:06 AM, William Lupton wrote:
All,
The text at the bottom of RFC 6087bis (draft 07) Section 5.8 seems unclear:
"It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished
versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher
value each time the Internet-Draft is re-posted”
Assuming that the intent is that the revision statements in YANG models contained
within IDs must be updated whenever the models are updated, wouldn’t it be clearer
if the parenthesised text "(i.e., Internet-Drafts)” was deleted?
Thanks,
William
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
