Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

As I see it, there's little reason to complain about that now.  There are
both tracker and tools links that give you the latest version, regardless
of what version was specified in the last call note, and the tracker link
is now included in the last call.  The answer to the question is always,
"The latest one, of course."  It's silly to have people reviewing errors
that have already been corrected and text that's already changed.

Barry

On Friday, May 4, 2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> In the past when I’ve done this during a Last Call (IETF or WG, can’t
> remember), someone else complained in the form of “So what version exactly
> are we supposed to be reviewing here?”  I think that’s where my own
> hesitation comes from when this decision needs to be made.
>
> -MSK****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');> [mailto:[e-mail]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Barry Leiba
> *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2012 7:48 AM
> *To:* Benoit Claise
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');>; [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');>; [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');>; [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');>
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of
> draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05****
>
> ** **
>
> > I just posted a new version of
> draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-06>,
> and****
>
> > forgot to include your comments.****
>
> ...****
>
> > From here, we could do 3 things
> >     1. I quickly post a new version of the draft
> >     2. Ron put an RFC-editor note
> >     3. We solve this during the AUTH48
> >
> > I will let Ron decide what's best.****
>
> ** **
>
> This happens all the time, and it always puzzles me.  What's the fear of
> posting another rev of the doc?  They're cheap and easy.****
>
> ** **
>
> Not to usurp Ron's decision of what's best in this case, but in general, I
> think that if one forgets to include something in a draft version, one
> simply puts it in and posts another version.  Voilà.****
>
> ** **
>
> Barry****
>