To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:40:45 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Versioning
>-----Original Message----- >From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 9:33 AM >To: Hollenbeck, Scott >Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' >Subject: Re: Versioning > > > >Scott, > >On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >> to identify version 1 of the mapping. If a new version is needed at a later >> date, incrementing the version number in the URI provides an easy way to >> ensure parser-enforced uniqueness. > >how about major-minor-patch. I forsee more object types than the ones we >have now. Also how would you track the rfc ststus? > > -draft-01 > -rfc-01 > -draft-standard-01 Major-minor-patch might be a bit much for specification identifiers because I can't see patches requiring specification changes. A major-minor revision number (such as -1.0) could be used for both standards track progression changes and future versioning needs, though. Which version number gets changed could well be a WG decision based on the scope of needed changes. <Scott/>