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?
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. Nigel
Nigel, James is right, these documents have changed. I attach the differences found for ripe-141, 142 and 191, for info. On Wed, 2 May 2001, Nigel Titley wrote:
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?
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.
-- Marc.Roger@belnet.be, BELNET
Dear Marc, Thank you for pointing out the minor changes made to ripe-141, ripe-142, ripe-191. Apologies are extended and we realise that this is not the agreed procedure for updating RIPE documents. We assure you that these changes will not set a precedent for future modifications made to RIPE documents. Regards, Paul Rendek RIPE NCC Marc Roger <marc@belnet.be> writes: * This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, * while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. * Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. * * ---559023410-341603450-988799134=:8747 * Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII * Content-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105021226201.8747@dagesh> * * Nigel, * * James is right, these documents have changed. I attach the differences * found for ripe-141, 142 and 191, for info. * * On Wed, 2 May 2001, Nigel Titley wrote: * * > > 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? * > * > 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. * * -- * Marc.Roger@belnet.be, BELNET
rendek@ripe.net:
Dear Marc,
Thank you for pointing out the minor changes made to ripe-141, ripe-142, ripe-191. Apologies are extended and we realise that this is not the agreed procedure for updating RIPE documents. We assure you that these changes will not set a precedent for future modifications made to RIPE documents.
Regards,
Paul Rendek RIPE NCC
*THIS*IS*NOT*GOOD*ENOUGH*! I strongly share James's and Nigel's concern about this. You have performed a major change (the "optional" to "mandatory" is a _significant_ difference!) and all you can do is apologize. What James wanted was an explanation **WHY** you stepped from the _VERY_STRONG_ convention that numbered Internet documents (which is clearly outspoken in the RIPE series of documents) don't change, and so far we have seen no explanation what so ever. You'd better have a strong reason that also has the property that it is obvious that it is not going to happen again. Unless you do, I demand that the changes be backed out, and that new documents be issued with new numbers, even if you just change a colon to a comma. New numbers are cheap and the have the nice property that there are plenty of them. Countless, actually. Very upset, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman ! E-mail: liman@autonomica.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! HTTP : //www.autonomica.se/ # Autonomica AB, Stockholm ! Voice : +46 8 - 615 85 72 #----------------------------------------------------------------------
um, yes....so what if we decided to change rfc791 eh? please do explain a) how this happened b) why c) what you're gonna do to avoid it in future specifically. i dunno, perhaps we should watermark all docs:-) (and/or put them only ever on write-once media) yrs worried of london jon
At 14:45 03/05/01 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
um, yes....so what if we decided to change rfc791 eh?
Indeed.
please do explain a) how this happened b) why c) what you're gonna do to avoid it in future specifically.
Or, perhaps d) whether we'll get an explanation in the plenary at RIPE39 this week. -- Joel Rowbottom BSc.(Hons) : Self-confessed Unix geek & Net addict since 1991 JML, UK [join the conspiracy] : Fax +44 (0)870 321 5356 : Email joel@jml.net Work stuff @ http://www.jml.net/ : Personal stuff @ http://www.joel.co.uk/
participants (6)
-
Joel Rowbottom -
Jon Crowcroft -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Marc Roger -
Nigel Titley -
Paul Rendek