There is some very good information in the Tao of the IETF. See Section 6.3 for this topic. it might be beefed up, but the major points are there. Russ On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:58 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t heard about > that before Š > > 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 >> > > >