I like this. In particular I like the clean use of “version” and “revision”. Editorial nit: add a comma after “i.e.” because that’s the style used for “e.g.”. Tx, W.
> On 31 Aug 2016, at 11:56, Jonathan Hansford <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about: > > NEW: > > It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft versions (e.g., > modules contained within Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of > draft versions, only the most recent revision need be recorded in the module. > However, whenever a new (i.e. changed) version is made available (e.g., via a > new version of an Internet-Draft), the revision date of that new version MUST > be updated to a date later than that of the previous version. > > Jonathan > > From: William Lupton <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 29 August 2016 15:20 > To: Andy Bierman <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements > indrafts > > Andy, > > This thread started with discussion of an apparent ambiguity in the current > text: > > 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 It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished 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. > > —— > > It became clear from the subsequent discussion (thanks Randy!) that the above > text isn’t intended to mean “reuse the identical revision statement, > INCLUDING THE REVISION DATE” but to mean “reuse the revision statement, > UPDATING THE REVISION DATE”. > > Then other people raised other points, e.g only updating the revision date if > the YANG has changed, distinguishing between the document and the YANG > contained therein, and distinguishing between YANG in IDs and YANG created by > other SDOs. My proposed new text tries to address all of these: > > NEW: > > It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft versions (e.g., > modules contained within Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of > draft versions, only the most recent revision need be recorded in the module. > However, if the module has changed, the revision date of the most recent > revision MUST be updated to a later date whenever a new version is made > available (e.g., via a new version of an Internet-Draft). > > —— > > I believe that this retains the original intent in a way that resolves the > original ambiguity and addresses the other points that were raised. It it’s > “worse”, how is it worse (apart from being longer, on which point mea culpa)? > > Thanks, > William > > On 19 Aug 2016, at 15:42, Andy Bierman <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Andy Bierman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes: > > An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; > > As I said, that's the theory, but practice is considerably different. > > Anybody that implements a work-in-progress knows they are taking a risk > on an unstable document. The guideline already says MUST update > the revision date. > > Not sure what more you want to guidelines document to do. > > Dale > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
