[178937] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Seastrom)
Sun Mar 15 09:24:54 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: William Norton <wbn@drpeering.net>
From: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:24:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <79307C7E-8715-4CB0-9305-0B0B71BFCF42@drpeering.net> (William
Norton's message of "Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:19:09 -0700")
Cc: "bcop-support@nanog.org" <bcop-support@nanog.org>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
William Norton <wbn@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
