Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as draft-dawkins-foo-bar-00, as a
means of documenting an idea to see if a currently-operating WG
is interested in it. The WG is, the Chair, conforming to
current practice, says "when you do a revision based on the
comments you have received, post it as
draft-ietf-MyWG-foo-bar-00".
Now, in addition to the traceability issues you identify, there
is an additional issue that really has an impact on how we
function: While the posting deadline for
draft-dawkins-foo-bar-01 is two weeks before the next IETF
meeting, the decision to post the same text as
draft-ietf-MyWG-foo-bar-00 instead requires that the decision to
do so must be made four weeks in advance of the meeting: while
the posting deadline for -00 drafts is three weeks before the
meeting, the secretariat seems to want an extra week for WG
Chair signoffs for WG-named drafts. Especially when IETF
meetings come close together, a four-week decision point is not
a good way to get maximum value out of the time between meetings.
john
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 06:15 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
<spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not smart about the definition of "fair" in an IETF
> context, but it's also worth noting that
>
> - 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
>...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf