[rssac-caucus] On versioning our documents
Greetings. This might sound really weenie, but it turns out to be important in the long run. I propose that from now on, we alway publish our documents as "RSSAC 0xx version 1". It is impossible to predict when will or will not need a version 2 (and beyond). If someone says "see RSSAC 0xx", that should always mean "the highest version number of 0xx", not "exactly the one numbered 0xx". The issues in 002 version 2 are not that big but NIST (the US government standards department that creates cryptographic standards) has had *huge* headaches when they have published revisions because Google still refers to the base version, not the most recent one. --Paul Hoffman
Paul, You're absolutely correct. The lack of a 'Version 1' was an oversight, despite it being documented in RSSAC 000. The plan is to do so on everything published in the future. -Jim Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings. This might sound really weenie, but it turns out to be important in the long run. I propose that from now on, we alway publish our documents as "RSSAC 0xx version 1". It is impossible to predict when will or will not need a version 2 (and beyond). If someone says "see RSSAC 0xx", that should always mean "the highest version number of 0xx", not "exactly the one numbered 0xx".
The issues in 002 version 2 are not that big but NIST (the US government standards department that creates cryptographic standards) has had *huge* headaches when they have published revisions because Google still refers to the base version, not the most recent one.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
+1 Agree to something standard that can be used across all RSSAC documents as well for versioning. On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings. This might sound really weenie, but it turns out to be important in the long run. I propose that from now on, we alway publish our documents as "RSSAC 0xx version 1". It is impossible to predict when will or will not need a version 2 (and beyond). If someone says "see RSSAC 0xx", that should always mean "the highest version number of 0xx", not "exactly the one numbered 0xx".
The issues in 002 version 2 are not that big but NIST (the US government standards department that creates cryptographic standards) has had *huge* headaches when they have published revisions because Google still refers to the base version, not the most recent one.
--Paul Hoffman
participants (3)
-
Jim Martin -
Paul Hoffman -
William Sotomayor