I like Jonathan’s proposed text as well. Kent // as a contributor
On 8/31/16, 8:14 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: On 8/31/16, 8:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 31 Aug 2016, at 13:17, William Lupton <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> 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. > >+1 > >Lada I like this text as well. Keeping a complete revision history in the model can become unwieldy. Besides, git does a MUCH better job of this. Thanks, Acee > >> >>> 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 >>> Sent: 29 August 2016 15:20 >>> To: Andy Bierman >>> Cc: [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unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date 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]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> Andy Bierman <[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 > >-- >Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
