ripe-list

Download

ripe-list@ripe.net

May 2001

11 participants
12 discussions

Re: RIPE Documents Modified
by James Aldridge 02 May '01

02 May '01

Nigel Titley wrote: > If this has, indeed, happened then I for one would be very disturbed. The > only way to modify a RIPE document should to be up-issue it. I recall Rob > getting very heated about this at the Budapest RIPE meeting. I notice that the RIPE NCC have now "tidied up" ftp.ripe.net but my mirror on ftp.mcvax.org shows: -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 66229 Jan 18 1999 ripe-141.ps -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 5939 May 1 10:17 ripe-141.txt -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 5973 Sep 19 1997 ripe-141.txt~ -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 244618 Sep 19 1997 ripe-142.ps -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 40467 May 1 10:34 ripe-142.txt -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 40666 Sep 19 1997 ripe-142.txt~ -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 52071 Oct 9 2000 ripe-191.ps -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 11488 May 1 10:22 ripe-191.txt -r--r--r-- 1 root ftp 11284 Feb 4 1999 ripe-191.txt~ I too would very much prefer that ripe documents (like RFCs) remained completely unchanged once assigned a number and published. In this case the changes were minor but this MUST NOT set a precedent for future modifications. James

1 0

RIPE Documents Modified
by James Aldridge 02 May '01

02 May '01

Can anyone explain why the ripe-141, ripe-191 and ripe-142 documents have been modified recently on the RIPE NCC ftp server rather than having new documents issued with new numbers? It's also interesting to note that the Postscript versions of these documents seem unchanged. And, yes, I realise that there is a requirement to bring database objects described in the documents in line with the new database implementation but shouldn't this have been done by issuing new documents? Is it helpful to have (potentially) different versions of the same document lying around with the same name? James -- James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture) KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL GSM: +31 653 708 707

1 0