[178923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 13 18:07:34 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1286B74.48AE7%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:05:52 -0700
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Cc: "bcop-support@nanog.org" <bcop-support@nanog.org>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Agreed. A new document should be a complete replacement and represent the fu=
ll text recommendation.=20
Owen
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 07:37, George, Wes <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP should get a new number and the previous
>> revision should be marked =A1=B0obsoleted by XXXXX=A1=B1 and it=A1=AFs do=
cument status
>> should reflect =A1=B0Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX=A1=B1 for all previou=
s
>> revisions. The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not
>> been obsoleted
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Wes George
>=20
>=20
> Anything below this line has been added by my company=A1=AFs mail server, I=
> have no control over it.
> -----------
>=20
>=20
>=20
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propr=
ietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig=
ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the us=
e of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the i=
ntended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemina=
tion, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of a=
nd 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 immediatel=
y and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any pr=
intout.
