Jan, On Mon, 27 May 2013 06:51:49 +0200 Jan Zorz <jan@pragma.si> wrote:
On 5/26/13 8:50 PM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote:
Dear colleagues,
as shortly discussed in Dublin I suggest to set up an errata page for the RIPE 554 document. Errors have been found, and we cannot change anything in the document without getting a new RIPE document number. But having to many different versions of the document confuses our audience.
A errata page would make it possible to document minor but important changes of the content of the document.
If the group says "yes" we could ask RIPE to help with a page like this. It should be easily reachable from the download page of RIPE554. We need to make RIPE-554 a "living-document" of some sort, as we need to be able to correct typos, fix the newly found flaws and update the RFC numbers as they evolve.
Typos and other minor edits seem quite reasonable in an errata document. Updating an RFC is new content, IMHO.
If that's achieved through an errata - I'm fine with that :)
I do think that both minor edits and mentioning new/updated RFC numbers is appropriate as errata though. To avoid having the RIPE document number become carved in stone across the whole planet, maybe we should encourage the use of something like "RIPE-554 or the latest version" (depending on context - a specific tender probably should not use that, but a guideline document probably should). -- Shane