Hi -
This also works for me, but I'd replace the odd "MAY" with the word "need".
(The semantics of "only" and of "MAY" don't quite mesh.)
Randy
On 8/15/2016 4:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 15 Aug 2016, at 13:31, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote:
Ah! Re-reading it I think that you are correct. In this spirit I propose the
change shown below. I believe that all this does is (a) generalise, and (b)
clarify. I don’t believe that it changes the intended meaning.
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It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished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.
NEW:
It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished
versions (e.g., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date (i.e., the revision
statement’s argument) MUST be updated to a higher value each time a new version
(e.g., of the Internet-Draft) is posted.
It seems strange to talk about reusing the revision statement and, in the same
sentence, require to change its argument. What about this:
NEW
It is not required to keep the revision history of unpublished versions (e.g.,
Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of unpublished versions, only the
most recent revision MAY be recorded in the module or submodule. However, the
revision date of the most recent revision MUST be updated to a higher value
each time a new version (e.g., of the Internet-Draft) is posted.
Lada
——
Comments?
On 11 Aug 2016, at 17:26, Randy Presuhn <randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu>
wrote:
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 Unpublished versions, i.e IDs, can reuse revision statements.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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
---
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
