[Tinyos Core WG] RFC model

[Philip Levis]

On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Kevin Klues wrote:

> 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.

But, again, how do you resolve the issue of clarifications changing  
the tone of the document?

Think about it from the perspective of the *readers* of the document:  
University A ports a new platform "amote" that meets TEP XXX. TEP XXX  
is then changed, such that it now indicates that the "amote" port is  
a bit off, and all applications written against TEP XXX might be a  
bit off too. One purpose of a clarification is to dispel a  
misperception, but if everyone is uniform, how do you resolve the  
change? Meeting TEP XXX becomes meets TEP XXX version A.B.

Note: you don't need to reissue an entirely new TEP (hence my comment  
about Informational). If all you want is a clarification, then you an  
write an Informational TEP. "TEP XXX states that a system SHOULD do  
Y. We describe considerations for this specification based on our  
experience with ZZZ."

Phil