[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 ]
Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
evyncke at cisco.com
Mon May 27 11:18:54 CEST 2013
Can we perhaps do something as the IEEE does (if not mistaken)? Not a wiki page, but, a monthly/quarterly release with specific TAGGING both in the document name and inside the document itself? Such as RIPE-554 then RIPE-554.201305 then RIPE-554.201307 .... Important, because I am afraid that we need to fix more than typos ;-) -éric > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Shane Kerr > Sent: lundi 27 mai 2013 10:21 > To: Jan Zorz > Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page > > Jan, > > On Mon, 27 May 2013 06:51:49 +0200 > Jan Zorz <jan at pragma.si> wrote: > > > On 5/26/13 8:50 PM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > as shortly discussed in Dublin I suggest to set up an errata page > > > for the RIPE 554 document. Errors have been found, and we cannot > > > change anything in the document without getting a new RIPE document > > > number. But having to many different versions of the document > > > confuses our audience. > > > > > > A errata page would make it possible to document minor but important > > > changes of the content of the document. > > > > > > If the group says "yes" we could ask RIPE to help with a page like > > > this. It should be easily reachable from the download page of > > > RIPE554. > > We need to make RIPE-554 a "living-document" of some sort, as we need > > to be able to correct typos, fix the newly found flaws and update the > > RFC numbers as they evolve. > > Typos and other minor edits seem quite reasonable in an errata document. > > Updating an RFC is new content, IMHO. > > > 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). > > -- > Shane
- 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 ]