[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Mon May 27 10:44:39 CEST 2013
Shane, On 5/27/13 10:20 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: >> If that's achieved through an errata - I'm fine with that :) > I do think that both minor edits and mentioning new/updated RFC numbers > is appropriate as errata though. > > To avoid having the RIPE document number become carved in stone across > the whole planet, maybe we should encourage the use of something like > "RIPE-554 or the latest version" (depending on context - a specific > tender probably should not use that, but a guideline document probably > should). > When reading "RIPE-544 or the latest version" - actually versioning comes to my mind. We could potentially edit the document further, do erratas and when we reach a consensus that it's good enough for that point in time we issue a version of the document. RIPE-554.1 :) I know that this may impact bigger mechanism of documents organization for the whole RIPE community - or maybe not. It's up to community to decide if we can allow exceptions like this and use different approach just for exceptions. Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]