Looking at http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html as Lou suggested, and also at 6.3.2 of the TAO as suggested by Russ, seems that is “almost” clear. May be we should encourage to make the filename longer if that make it more explicit, and clarify that full author name(s) should be used (if not already there and I missed it in a quick read). I guess the folks that have been there for long time, missed the I-D guidelines (2010) that Russ wrote up. Mea culpa. Probably when you have been reading a lot of documents since long time, even before started contributing, we just acquired the “habit” to use the convention w/o knowing it. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> Responder a: <lberger@xxxxxxxx> Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 23:44 Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: Unhelpful draft names >Surprising. .. > > >On March 9, 2015 6:25:39 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ><jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> To make it shorter, replying both, John, Jari and Paul … >> >> I’ve been around since 2001, and since London/2001 never missed a single >> meeting, and my memory may fail of course (usually don’t), but don’t >> recall a single time where this convention was mention in a meeting, >>mail >> exploder, nothing. When I started contributing with my own documents, >> somehow, for me was obvious that the draft-00 title should be as much >> self-explained as posible, and event temped to make it longer if needed >> using for example “palet-v6ops-distributed-security” instead of >> “palet-v6ops-ds”, etc., but just because this is the way I usually name >>my >> files and folders in my own computer. >> >> So yes, I guess this convention has been forgotten or not widely enough >> spread out. >> > >http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html > >Individual: A string related to the name of one of the authors in some >way. >There are no mechanical rules for this string but objectionable or >misleading strings are subject to change or removal at the discretion of >the Secretariat.Document name. For non-working group document. > >Lou > >> I don’t have a preference about an RFC versus the submission tool being >> modified, but sadly, I don’t think this will be enough. Even if you find >> the way to widely spread out the convention (which means posting in all >> the WG exploders, general exploder, modifying newcomer slide sets, a few >> IETF pages, etc.), possibly will not be enough, will take longer and >>will >> not be so effective. Just an opinion, trying to be realistic. >> >> An RFC enforces conventions, that’s it, and if that means when there is >>a >> request to present in the WG for the first time a document, the chairs >>can >> determine in a way as much objective as possible (an RFC) that it >>doesn’t >> stick to the convention as indicated in the RFC, they can just come back >> to the authors and suggest “you need to resubmit” with the correct >>naming >> convention before presenting. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >> Responder a: <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >> Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 22:26 >> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion >> list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Asunto: Re: Unhelpful draft names >> >> > >> > >> >--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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >