On 2021-04-27, at 14:53, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > IMO, hosting non "adopted" drafts at a separate domain would reinforce the perception that the "adopted" drafts are already endorsed by the WG or IETF, and IMO this would be a Bad Thing. The boilerplate probably should explain that “adopted” means “the IRTF RG/IETF WG <name> has expressed interest in working on this document” (and that individual drafts do not have any status). Apart from that, I do believe in the power of signals, so increasing the difference in the signals for draft-* and draft-ietf is probably good, while sending the wrong signal about draft-ietf is bad (but then, the signal we are sending for these does not change). As has been mentioned, changing the authority (hostname) of the link is not very strong, as the difference may not persist in copies. (I’m somehow reminded of the abortive attempts by some universities to give students mail addresses that clearly identify the holder of the address as a lowly student(*), which of course needs a change in address when the status of the student changes, and is a strong disincentive to use that “peon” mail address in the first place. But the present case is about names for documents, not people, so increasing the difference in signal is very well possible.) Grüße, Carsten (*) And, as a welcome contrast, I adore Cambridge for their absolute egalitarianism here!
