--On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:42 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is described. > > http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#naming and Section > 7 of http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt Yes, if one knows where to find them. Now, how many people who submit I-Ds, especially those who are new to the IETF within the last half-dozen years, are aware of those pages? If we are serious about those guidelines, why isn't there a prominent statement on the I-D Submission page and/or the "Internet Drafts" page accessed from the main IETF page (http://www.ietf.org/id-info/) indicating that there are guidelines (not just for naming) and that people are expected to follow them (at least unless there is strong reason to not do so) and providing a link. There _is_ a "Guidelines" link on the latter, but it is about as non-prominent as one could make it and gives not hint that people really need to read it before writing I-Ds. Why are those rules apparently being ignored regularly with absolutely no ill effects to the authors? We can't be taking them seriously when at least two IESG members have posted using the draft-CyrpticNameCombination-mytopic form in recent years and then pushed the documents through to BCP or Standards Track status? Conversely, if we don't want to depend on naming conventions, we could require that I-Ds either identify a workgroup in the header or explicitly contain a [to be removed on RFC publication] section or subsection with a reserved title that specifies the discussion locale. It the authors of a particular document have no clue or don't intend community discussion, let them say so. The presence of that header of section title would be really easy for the submission tool to check. best, john