- as Steve Coya pointed out every IETF meeting for years during the WG chair training, there is NO linkage between what the filename is and whether it's a WG draft or not. The WG name is listed in a separate field in the database, and any draft with a WG name in that field, regardless of the file name, is listed on the WG charter page,
- every time we rename an individual draft when it becomes a WG draft, we make it harder to trace versions of the new draft back to versions of the old draft (I am a Gen-ART reviewer and usually look at previous versions of a draft at Last Call time, to see what's been changing),
- every time we rename a draft because it moves from one working group to another, we make it harfer to trace versions of the new draft back to versions of the old draft (ditto),
- the reason we rename individual drafts seems to be that there are so many drafts that a large number of participants base decisions to review a draft on whether they THINK that it's a WG draft - and there's no other information about whether a draft is a WG draft, except the filename, in the ID Announcement.
I should also point out that if you haven't looked at http://www.ietf.org/ID.html in the past month, it now includes a pointer to a "New Internet-Drafts Database Interface", so someone is being busy in this area currently...
Maybe we could improve the announcements to say what the WG (WGs?) are for a draft, and we could quit twisting in this self-inflicted wind?
Spencer
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: MARID back from the grave?
timeWhat is particularly ironic is that these I-Ds began as individual submissions and we were asked to bring them in, under Marid, just in
for the working group to be disbanded.
We have seen that situation before, for example when the NGTRANS working
group was disbanded. Some of the work was picked up by a new working
group, but to start with a clean base all drafts had to be resubmitted
as individual contribution. At this point, we get the deadline effect: a
work that in reality is a revision has now to meet the "original
submission" deadline. That's not very fair. In these conditions, there
should be some kind of automatic exemption, maybe by allowing drafts to
use an N+1 version number.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf