Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?

From: Dave Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:33:11 +0000

At 10:14 PM -0500 2/26/05, Keith Moore wrote:
>  > Thanks.  I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
>>  be as many entries in the revision history as the
>>  revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
>>  00, and so on).
>
>don't do that.  it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier to
>publication of I-Ds  
>
>I-Ds are supposed to be a quick-and-dirty mechanism for
>circulating (sometimes quite rough) drafts among interested parties.  we
>
>don't need to impose a complicated revision history mechanism just
>because we have two different cutoff dates for I-Ds.  and there's
>certainly no need to impose such a requirement on drafts that
>(a) aren't WG work items and
>(b) are submitted before the earlier cutoff date.
>
>Keith

I think I overstated what I was looking for.  I often see requests 
like "I saw -03, this is -05, what as -04 and what has changed?" on 
the mailing lists.  I was just thinking that a section like this 
would help (names are just examples)

Change history:

draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-05    25-jun-2007   removed indirect 
virtual mode as no-one understood it
draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-04    3-may-2007   spelling fixes, changed draft name
draft-ietf-dxs-sense-03            2-may-2007   accepted by the DXS WG
draft-mordred-sense-02            1-apr-2007    fixed boilerplate 
material including copyright
draft-mordred-sense-01            2-feb-2007    merged in 
draft-morgan-sniffer-04 as the two were sim.
draft-mordred-sense-00            8-jan-2007    initial version

Doesn't seem like this would be hard to make;  it could be 'expected 
but not required'...
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0500

> the mailing lists.  I was just thinking that a section like this would 
> help (names are just examples)
>
> Change history:
>
> draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-05    25-jun-2007   removed indirect virtual 
> mode as no-one understood it

it's a fine thing if people want to do it; I just don't want to make it 
a requirement.  it is already too difficult to publish an 
Internet-Draft, and this kind of requirement has the potential for 
getting way out of hand.  for instance, I wouldn't want someone to 
raise a process issue if the required change history of a WG draft 
omitted mention of some change that was significant.