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OLD It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-posted.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 <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com > <mailto:wor...@ariadne.com>> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com <mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> 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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
