BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 13 22:05:52 UTC 2015


Agreed. A new document should be a complete replacement and represent the full text recommendation. 

Owen




> On Mar 13, 2015, at 07:37, George, Wes <wesley.george at twcable.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a
>> sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor
>> responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or
>> revised BCOP.
>> 
>> Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP should get a new number and the previous
>> revision should be marked “obsoleted by XXXXX” and it’s document status
>> should reflect “Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX” for all previous
>> revisions. The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not
>> been obsoleted
> 
> A note of caution:
> 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. If what you're suggesting is actually a full
> replacement of the document so that the new version is complete and
> standalone, I think that's better, but really I don't understand why these
> can't be more living documents (like a Wiki) instead of just using the
> server as a public dropbox for static files. The higher the drag for
> getting updates done, the more likely they are to go obsolete and be less
> useful to the community.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Wes George
> 
> 
> Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
> have no control over it.
> -----------
> 
> 
> 
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.


More information about the NANOG mailing list