I think the issue is at the end of the sentence, my proposal:
- the Internet-Draft is re-posted.
+ the work is published (e.g., it becomes an RFC).
That said, for IETF drafts (not other SDOs), my understanding is that the
revision statement’s date value SHOULD be the date that the I-D is uploaded to
IETF datatracker. All my drafts are built using a Makefile that includes `sed`
processing instructions to set the YANG module dates to the current date - and
they include RFC-Editor instructions to reset the value again to the date the
RFC is published.
Kent // as a contributor
On 8/11/16, 5:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of William Lupton"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote:
All,
The text at the bottom of RFC 6087bis (draft 07) Section 5.8 seems unclear:
"It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished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”
Assuming that the intent is that the revision statements in YANG models
contained within IDs must be updated whenever the models are updated, wouldn’t
it be clearer if the parenthesised text "(i.e., Internet-Drafts)” was deleted?
Thanks,
William
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
