I will agree on that convention ? but to be honest, didn¹t heard about that before ? It may happen that more and more new folks are contributing and this is not being encouraged in the newcomer talks, slide sets, etc. ? Of course the alternative is to enforce it via an RFC, I guess in the general area. It may be seen as too much, but if the convention has been there already, I don¹t think is too much work neither too difficult to make it happen quickly ? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Organización: University of Auckland Responder a: <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 21:49 Para: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Unhelpful draft names >Hi, > >It's one of those three days in the year when we get hundreds of drafts >announced >in succession, which makes the job of deciding which drafts a person >needs to >read harder than ever. > >I have no idea what draft-xmss-00.txt is about and have no plans to find >out. But it seems to me that we have a fairly strong convention that >non-WG drafts should be named something like > draft-<author>-<generalTopic>-<specificTopic> >where the generalTopic is often a WG name, if there is a relevant WG. > >Now I realise we don't want to be too rigid, e.g. the author component >is sometimes ymbk or farresnickel, but should we have a bit more >enforcement >in the tools, at least such that draft-oneWord-00 would not be acceptable? > > Brian >