On Wed 05/Sep/2012 21:59:56 +0200 John C Klensin wrote: > --On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> That's an interesting but not very informative statement. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html > > Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a more > sophisticated posting system that enforced the few rules we > already have, it would not have been accepted and posted in the > first place. Individual drafts are supposed to be title > draft-OneOfTheAuthorNames-foo-bar-NN. This one didn't meet that > rule. The I-D /was/ named after one of the author names. Although expired, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed is still accessible. > From the standpoint of those rules/conventions about naming at > least, it is as if I posted something as draft-moonesamy-foobar-00 > or draft-carpenter-barfoo-00 in the hope that would get extra > attention. I removed much more than I added, so putting my name would have been overly selfish. > That said, the author in this particular case could presumably have > posted draft-vesely-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 and then > persuaded the Secretariat that it replaced > draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00, thereby causing > the latter to be removed from the _active_ I-D repository and moved > off to the historical I-D archive. That maneuver sounds more contrived than what I did. I thought about posting a new version with null content, or possibly with tombstone text, but that would still have left version 00 in place. In order to invalidate an archived version, we'd need a process mechanically similar to rfc-editor's "Errata". If visually winsome, Errata's content could then be rendered the new way as well.