BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
Sun Mar 15 13:24:49 UTC 2015


William Norton <wbn at drpeering.net> writes:

> Agreed - Hence the “Current” in the title. Maybe the date of the
> document will be the key to let people know that they have the most
> current version.

The date of a single document is of scant use in determining its
currency unless there is some sort of requirement for periodic
recertification and gratuitous reissue of BCOPs (for instance,
anything with a date stamp more than 18 months in the past is
by definition invalid).  That seems like busy work to periodically
affirm that a good idea is still a good idea, and I don't volunteer
for this job.  :)

I'm on board for wholesale replacement of the document (with revision
history preserved) rather than the RFC series approach.

The wiki/living document approach others have suggested seems like a
poor one to me, for the same reason that I dislike the current trend
of "there's no release tarball, major release, point release, or
regression testing - just git clone the repository" in free software
development.  Releng is hard and thankless but adds enormous value and
serves as a forcing function for some level of review, cursory though
it may be.

-r



More information about the NANOG mailing list