OK, just got caught up on thread... On Tue 28/05/13 5:13 AM , Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

On 28 May 2013, at 13:00, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" wrote:

...

...

As was just discussing with Jan here in St Petersburg, I'm getting a bit confused about where we are heading.

Do we still want to compile a list of errors and find a way to "attach"

On 5/28/13 1:12 PM, MarcoH wrote: this to the 554 document as an errata?

...

Or are we now gaining momentum to do a full revision and release a new

document superseding 554? Which of course should incorporate all the fixes as well (and probably introduce some new mistakes)

...

This is a complex question now ;)

I suggest that I make two lists - one with mistakes and errata material in another one with significant changes suggestions.

For a quick fix we could process "errata" small changes and when the other list with bigger changes grows enough that we collectively decide we need a new version of the document - we go and change it.

Would that work?

That sounds good.

Works for me too. The one known issue for RIPE 554 is (and has been for a long time as Sander pointed out), the fact that we should have had RFC6105 instead of RFC 4862 since the intent was to make RA filtering mandatory. Jan has approached me a few times to see about helping edit a newer version and I am OK with that as long as there are enough changes to warrant a completely new document. We don't want to turn out a new RIPE doc every time one new v6 related RFC is published but certainly we should keep track of enhancements and modifications on best practices as deployments continue and then turn out a new document (and obsolete previous one(s)). - merike