Hi -
I read the text as intended to make a distinction between the *date*
portion and the rest
of the revision statement. When a module is under development,
retaining a history
of specific incremental changes isn't terribly helpful, but changing the
date is essential
to helping tools decide among the versions floating around in the lab.
Randy (experimenting with mail readers, please forgive formatting anomalies)
On 8/11/2016 9:17 AM, William Lupton wrote:
Thanks. e.g rather than i.e sounds good, BUT my point (sorry if that
wasn’t clear) is that this sentence seems to be contradictory. It says:
1. Unpublished versions, i.e IDs, can reuse revision statements.
2. IDs MUST update their revision dates each time they are re-posted.
My suggestion of removing the parenthesised text was to remove this
contradiction. Right now I’m not clear that I can rely on revision
dates in YANG modules contained within IDs.
William
PS, I think that the removal of this text removes the contradiction
because in order to make sense of the sentence the reader will be
forced to the conclusion that IDs are not regarded as being “unpublished”.
On 11 Aug 2016, at 17:07, Randy Presuhn
<randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu
<mailto:randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu>> wrote:
Hi -
The situation with Internet-Drafts is what motivated this text in the
first place, so
I think it is important to retain that information. However, it
seems to me that
the "i.e." is too limiting, and should be replaced with an "e.g.".
Randy
On 8/11/2016 2:06 AM, William Lupton 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unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date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 <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
