[rssac-caucus] On versioning our documents

[Jim Martin]

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 at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus