Re: Status of this memo [name remixing]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 28-Apr-21 01:26, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> 
>> Il 27/04/2021 10:41 Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>
>> There was a suggestion recently to not serve I-Ds from ietf.org domains until they were adopted by the IETF. Do you think serving individual drafts from another domain would help make that distinction clearer?
> 
> URIs can help, because they are posted around to refer to documents, so they can contain prominent semantic "messages", either in the hostname or in the top path element. However, I think it would be even better to do this in the filename, as the filename persists even when the file is downloaded or attached. For example, you could reverse the order of the initial elements and things would already be much clearer:
> 
> ietf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> irtf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> independent-draft-<author>-<subject>

I think this, like the suggestion to post drafts to differently named servers, would make matters worse for several reasons:

1) If people already have intellectual difficulty understanding that a filename starting with "draft-" is only a draft, this difficulty will be even greater with remixed names or multiple servers.

2) I hesitate to write this, but "draft-" has beome a brand, although less so than "RFC".

3) We have a lot of tooling that (for better or worse) assumes the draft- naming conventions, and a single server for all drafts. That isn't only IETF official tooling; I'm sure many of us have our own scripts and working habits. That's a real economic cost.

4) We have a de facto agreement that all RFC streams use common practices as far as possible, including IPR regimes. Remixing names and splitting servers wouldn't change that, but would make it less evident.

5) It is not uncommon for drafts to jump ship (from a WG to AD-sponsored; from IRTF to IETF; from IRTF or IETF to Independent, etc.). Forcing name changes for this reason is just makework.

...
> By the way, "independent" is not immediately clear. "Personal" or "unofficial" would IMHO be better.

"Independent" refers to the Independent Submission RFC stream.

   Brian
 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux