[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page

Can we perhaps do something as the IEEE does (if not mistaken)?

Not a wiki page, but, a monthly/quarterly release with specific TAGGING both in the document name and inside the document itself?

Such as RIPE-554 then RIPE-554.201305 then RIPE-554.201307 ....

Important, because I am afraid that we need to fix more than typos ;-)

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf
> Of Shane Kerr
> Sent: lundi 27 mai 2013 10:21
> To: Jan Zorz
> Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
> 
> Jan,
> 
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 06:51:49 +0200
> Jan Zorz <jan at 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