Dear Marc, Thank you for pointing out the minor changes made to ripe-141, ripe-142, ripe-191. Apologies are extended and we realise that this is not the agreed procedure for updating RIPE documents. We assure you that these changes will not set a precedent for future modifications made to RIPE documents. Regards, Paul Rendek RIPE NCC Marc Roger <marc@belnet.be> writes: * This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, * while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. * Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. * * ---559023410-341603450-988799134=:8747 * Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII * Content-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105021226201.8747@dagesh> * * Nigel, * * James is right, these documents have changed. I attach the differences * found for ripe-141, 142 and 191, for info. * * On Wed, 2 May 2001, Nigel Titley wrote: * * > > Can anyone explain why the ripe-141, ripe-191 and ripe-142 documents have been * > > modified recently on the RIPE NCC ftp server rather than having new documents * > > issued with new numbers? It's also interesting to note that the Postscript * > > versions of these documents seem unchanged. * > > * > > And, yes, I realise that there is a requirement to bring database objects * > > described in the documents in line with the new database implementation but * > > shouldn't this have been done by issuing new documents? Is it helpful to have * > > (potentially) different versions of the same document lying around with the * > > same name? * > * > If this has, indeed, happened then I for one would be very disturbed. * > The only way to modify a RIPE document should to be up-issue it. I * > recall Rob getting very heated about this at the Budapest RIPE meeting. * * -- * Marc.Roger@belnet.be, BELNET