On 02/21/2014 02:59 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
As long as (1) we have tools to map authors to documents for search and aggregation purposes anyway, (2) we maintain the reserved structure of draft-ietf-wg-* and other special second elements, I don't see any reason to further restrict the second element of the draft name. This came in handy recently in IPPM, where we had multiple proposals for a performance metrics registry that started pretty widely separated from each other. It would have been arbitrary and inaccurate simply to choose an author name for each the (individual draft) stages of the convergence; the resulting draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry-00 is IMO accurately named. A policy strictly restricting element 2 to author names would have required us to waste energy on a "what do we want to name the band" discussion.
Agree. We have too many piddly rules that serve little or no purpose already. As long as neither the identifier nor the listed authors in the document are misleading, I don't see the need to impose further restrictions on them.
Keith