Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements indrafts

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    
    
    On 8/31/16, 8:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
    <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    
    >
    >> On 31 Aug 2016, at 13:17, William Lupton <[e-mail]>
    >>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 <[e-mail]>
    >>>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: [e-mail]
    >>> 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unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>>  
    >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]>
    >>>wrote:
    >>> Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> 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
    >> [e-mail]
    >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >
    >--
    >Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
    >PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >netmod mailing list
    >[e-mail]
    >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod