Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

["George, Wes" <wesley.george () twcable com>]

On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote:

> Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a
> sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor
> responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or
> revised BCOP.
>
> Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP should get a new number and the previous
> revision should be marked “obsoleted by XXXXX” and it’s document status
> should reflect “Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX” for all previous
> revisions. The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not
> been obsoleted

A note of caution:
Please don't exactly replicate the RFC series's model where the existing
document can only be updated by new documents but is not always completely
replaced/obsoleted such that the reader is left following the trail of
breadcrumbs across multiple documents trying to figure out what the union
of the two (or 3 or 14) "current" documents actually means in terms of the
complete guidance. If what you're suggesting is actually a full
replacement of the document so that the new version is complete and
standalone, I think that's better, but really I don't understand why these
can't be more living documents (like a Wiki) instead of just using the
server as a public dropbox for static files. The higher the drag for
getting updates done, the more likely they are to go obsolete and be less
useful to the community.

Thanks,

Wes George


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, 
confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments 
to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.