Adam Turoff writes:
> >From here on out, Frozen RFCs shall remain Frozen.  Should the maintainer
> wish to clarify them after they have been frozen, the version number
> will increment by some fractional value (.01?), and a 
> "Clarified: DD MMM YYYY" header will be added to the metadata.
> Objections?
> I think it's time to encourage RFCs to be frozen.  Hopefully this will help.

I'm against fractional version numbers on the grounds that it's
another piece of knowledge that must be held before someone can
understand the system (think of 5.004_54 and how hideous that system
was).  Integers imply all changes are equal.  I like that, and I'm not
sure that microupdates warrant this new level of complexity.

My feeling: if the maintainer is:
 * fixing typos
 * adding References
then they should be allowed to update the frozen RFC, incrementing
the version number and describing the change in the Changes section.

More substantial changes should probably be withheld once you've
decided to freeze an RFC.  If you're contemplating a major rewrite,
then that deserves a new discussion period.


Reply via email to