on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: [...] > Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the > life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in > the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have > just had an RFC published from an I-D named as an individual submission, > and the work item we're currently spending most of our cycles on is > something we inherited from CAT which still has a draft-cat-* filename. > Ironically, the only confusion I'm aware of is in the part of Henrik's > excellent WG status pages, which don't recognize that these documents > belong to us (I understand he's working on a way to fix that). Fixed as of today for active drafts. Unfortunately, this is based on the information in 1id-index.txt, which only gives the draft -> WG association for active drafts. Currently I don't have any good source of draft -> WG associations for published, replaced or expired drafts. One consequence of this is that the draft-ietf-cat-* document you refer to is visible on the krb-wg draft status page now, but the published individual submission is not. (I haven't given up on rectifying this, too, but it isn't on the top of the list currently.) Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf