Re: MARID back from the grave?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 10:14 PM -0500 2/26/05, Keith Moore wrote:
> Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
 be as many entries in the revision history as the
 revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
 00, and so on).

don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier to
publication of I-Ds


I-Ds are supposed to be a quick-and-dirty mechanism for
circulating (sometimes quite rough) drafts among interested parties.  we

don't need to impose a complicated revision history mechanism just
because we have two different cutoff dates for I-Ds.  and there's
certainly no need to impose such a requirement on drafts that
(a) aren't WG work items and
(b) are submitted before the earlier cutoff date.

Keith

I think I overstated what I was looking for. I often see requests like "I saw -03, this is -05, what as -04 and what has changed?" on the mailing lists. I was just thinking that a section like this would help (names are just examples)


Change history:

draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-05 25-jun-2007 removed indirect virtual mode as no-one understood it
draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-04 3-may-2007 spelling fixes, changed draft name
draft-ietf-dxs-sense-03 2-may-2007 accepted by the DXS WG
draft-mordred-sense-02 1-apr-2007 fixed boilerplate material including copyright
draft-mordred-sense-01 2-feb-2007 merged in draft-morgan-sniffer-04 as the two were sim.
draft-mordred-sense-00 8-jan-2007 initial version


Doesn't seem like this would be hard to make; it could be 'expected but not required'...
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]