[Tinyos Core WG] RFC model

[Kevin Klues]

I think stable does actually sound better than final.  Saying that a
TEP is final sounds, well... too final.  I think creating entirely new
TEPs for a small clarification change is a bit too much though.  I
think it might be confusing if we decided that, say TEP 101 needed
some better clarifications once it was finalized/stabilized (and with
the way TEP 101 has been going, it probably will) so we need to
reissue a new TEP number for the clarified version as TEP 250 since
that is the next available TEP number in the rotation.  It seems more
reasonable to me to assign it to TEP 101.1 or something of that
nature, keeping the primary number consistent, and just appending
revisions onto it.

We could

On 10/13/06, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Kevin Klues wrote:
>
> > I liked Vlado's suggestion of versioning finalized documents.  That
> > would mean that if the first "final" version had some small spelling
> > errors or required clarifications they could be added without
> > requriing an entirely new TEP to be created.  If there is a drastic
> > change, however, a new TEP can be issued that obsoletes an old one in
> > the same fashion as the RFCs.
>
>
> OK, I think the "spelling error" case is a red herring. That's what
> spell checkers are for.
>
> How do we resolve the "clarification" case when it changes the tone
> or suggested approaches of the document? When someone says "this
> follows TEP XXX", which version do they mean?
>
> It sounds like you'd prefer "Stable" to "Final."
>
> Phil
>


-- 
~Kevin