Ah! Re-reading it I think that you are correct. In this spirit I propose the change shown below. I believe that all this does is (a) generalise, and (b) clarify. I don’t believe that it changes the intended meaning.
OLD: It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-posted. NEW: It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (e.g., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date (i.e., the revision statement’s argument) MUST be updated to a higher value each time a new version (e.g., of the Internet-Draft) is posted. —— Comments? > On 11 Aug 2016, at 17:26, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi - > > I read the text as intended to make a distinction between the *date* portion > and the rest > > of the revision statement. When a module is under development, retaining a > history > > of specific incremental changes isn't terribly helpful, but changing the date > is essential > > to helping tools decide among the versions floating around in the lab. > > > Randy (experimenting with mail readers, please forgive formatting anomalies) > > > On 8/11/2016 9:17 AM, William Lupton wrote: >> Thanks. e.g rather than i.e sounds good, BUT my point (sorry if that wasn’t >> clear) is that this sentence seems to be contradictory. It says: >> >> 1. Unpublished versions, i.e IDs, can reuse revision statements. >> 2. IDs MUST update their revision dates each time they are re-posted. >> >> My suggestion of removing the parenthesised text was to remove this >> contradiction. Right now I’m not clear that I can rely on revision dates in >> YANG modules contained within IDs. >> >> William >> >> PS, I think that the removal of this text removes the contradiction because >> in order to make sense of the sentence the reader will be forced to the >> conclusion that IDs are not regarded as being “unpublished”. >> >>> On 11 Aug 2016, at 17:07, Randy Presuhn <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> 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
