Re: RIPE Documents Modified

[Nigel Titley <]

Paul,

> 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.

A couple of points:

1. It was James who spotted the changes, not Marc

2. Although the changes involved are pretty sensible, one or two at least are 
not minor. I'm thinking particularly of the change of mnt-by from optional to 
mandatory.

However, apology accepted (by me at any rate), and no doubt Rob will be 
visiting to make sure that this doesn't happen again :-)

Nigel
 
> 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