--On Monday, March 09, 2015 21:58 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t > heard about that before Š Jordi, once upon a time, before we had automatic submissions, the convention was not only documented in the instructions to I-D authors but enforced by the secretariat. Even inventions like "ymbk" and "farresnickel" sometimes required a bit of negotiating with the Secretariat and a document that had Jones and Smith as authors and that was named draft-jones-smith-CleverName-00 would, IIR, be rejected. For the reasons Brian gives (and a few others), I'd very much like to see the submission tools modified in much the way Paul Hoffman suggests. However, in recent years, I've tried raising this a few times and have gotten no traction and more than one rude suggestion that I just suck it up. The result is that I've largely adopted the model implied by Brian's note -- I assume that, if I can't figure out either who the author is or what a draft is about, the author either wants to post an I-D but doesn't care whether anyone reads it or not or is so busy being impressed by his or her own cleverness that it is unlikely that the draft contains anything of use. The observation that at least one notorious troll periodically posted drafts with non-informative names reinforce that view. best, john