BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Andrew Sullivan asullivan at dyn.com
Fri Mar 13 14:52:58 UTC 2015


On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:37:10AM -0400, George, Wes wrote:
> Please don't exactly replicate the RFC series's model where the existing
> document can only be updated by new documents but is not always completely
> replaced/obsoleted such that the reader is left following the trail of
> breadcrumbs across multiple documents trying to figure out what the union
> of the two (or 3 or 14) "current" documents actually means in terms of the
> complete guidance. 

I have to agree with this.  RFCs are the way they are because they
represent an archival series (and even so, probably we could do a
better job with this).  The whole reasoning to create a completely new
series with separate ways of creation was supposedly that the RFC
series and BCPs didn't do what the community needed.  It seems to me
that one of the most important differences in operational guidance is
that old operational guidance goes away when it is superseded by
changed operational conditions, so there's no reason to keep the old
documents around except as historical artifacts.  If people want an
archive for historians' use, I'm ok with it.  But it seems to me that
updating a document of the same number (and making them version
numbered too) would be more useful.  Then you could always refer to
"BCOP 1234" for "Carrier Pigeon Operational Practices", and wouldn't
need to update references and so on.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn, Inc.
email: asullivan at dyn.com
voicemail: +1 603 663 0448


More information about the NANOG mailing list