[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page

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