> On 15 Aug 2016, at 14:23, Jonathan Hansford <[email protected]> wrote: > > Should it be a MAY or a MUST? And why is it “e.g. of the Internet-Draft”? > Isn’t it more “each time a new version is posted (e.g. in a new version of > the Internet-Draft)”? Shouldn’t the revision statement reflect changes to the > module or submodule rather than to the Internet-Draft in which they are > published?
It would indeed be useful if the revision date is bumped only after the module itself has been changed - except when the module is published in an RFC. Lada > > Jonathan > > From: Ladislav Lhotka > Sent: 15 August 2016 12:44 > To: William Lupton > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements > indrafts > > > > On 15 Aug 2016, at 13:31, William Lupton <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > 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 It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished 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 It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished 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. > > It seems strange to talk about reusing the revision statement and, in the > same sentence, require to change its argument. What about this: > > NEW > > It is not required to keep the revision history of unpublished versions > (e.g., Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of unpublished versions, > only the most recent revision MAY be recorded in the module or submodule. > However, the revision date of the most recent revision MUST be updated to a > higher value each time a new version (e.g., of the Internet-Draft) is posted. > > Lada > > > > > —— > > > > 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 > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
