IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Idnits-2.16.02 feedback: -latest pattern

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 06 April 2019 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B85F12007C for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kmGOPimf5qTY for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 11:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 260D712007A for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 11:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-0075.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0075.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44c52x0NdNzyZg; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 20:35:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <DF8CFFFD-44B5-4492-85AD-20369F0CD5EA@bangj.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:35:20 +0200
Cc: tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 576268518.590238-c79bcdf2c175b31d19fcbdc596d07b99
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32B80C58-CD9E-4137-9E58-6719F1B57307@tzi.org>
References: <F4EFC3A3-BBC7-44D9-9205-ED60EE7863AA@tzi.org> <DF8CFFFD-44B5-4492-85AD-20369F0CD5EA@bangj.com>
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/pxziXhlSUJIfp1DR9d-Um7pzyg0>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Idnits-2.16.02 feedback: -latest pattern
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 18:35:25 -0000

On Apr 6, 2019, at 19:04, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
> 
> I would be in favor of the submission process assigning a number based on previous state. New documents get -00 and subsequent versions are assigned the next revision number. That way, the document doesn’t have to specify a version number.

The current scheme is a little more resilient in the face of co-author confusion of who is supposed to submit.  If this were less of a real problem, I’d probably agree that maintaining that version number by hand is a bit of busywork I don’t really need.  But then, I’d need to backport the assigned version number to my source revision control…

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email