Re: RIPE Documents Modified

[Paul Rendek <]

Dear Marc, 

Thank you for pointing out the minor changes made to ripe-141,
ripe-142, ripe-191. Apologies are extended and we realise that this
is not the agreed procedure for updating RIPE documents. We assure you
that these changes will not set a precedent for future modifications
made to RIPE documents.

Regards, 

Paul Rendek
RIPE NCC



 Marc Roger marc@localhost writes:
 *   This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
 *   while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
 *   Send mail to mime@localhost for more info.
 * 
 * ---559023410-341603450-988799134=:8747
 * Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
 * Content-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105021226201.8747@localhost
 * 
 * Nigel,
 * 
 * James is right, these documents have changed. I attach the differences
 * found for ripe-141, 142 and 191, for info.
 * 
 * On Wed, 2 May 2001, Nigel Titley wrote:
 * 
 * > > Can anyone explain why the ripe-141, ripe-191 and ripe-142 documents have been
 * > > modified recently on the RIPE NCC ftp server rather than having new documents
 * > > issued with new numbers?  It's also interesting to note that the Postscript
 * > > versions of these documents seem unchanged.
 * > >
 * > > And, yes, I realise that there is a requirement to bring database objects
 * > > described in the documents in line with the new database implementation but
 * > > shouldn't this have been done by issuing new documents?  Is it helpful to have
 * > > (potentially) different versions of the same document lying around with the
 * > > same name?
 * >
 * > If this has, indeed, happened then I for one would be very disturbed.
 * > The only way to modify a RIPE document should to be up-issue it. I
 * > recall Rob getting very heated about this at the Budapest RIPE meeting.
 * 
 * --
 * Marc.Roger@localhost, BELNET