---- Original Message ----- From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:24 PM 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. <tp> Jordi Coincidentally, I posted to this list two days ago and mentioned just this topic of naming convention for I-Ds. My concern was about unhelpful draft names, but not quite in the sense that Brian raised. Rather, my concern was seeing a growing number of drafts entitled draft-johndoe-netmod-some-app-or-protocol my concern being that these should never go to the netmod WG but to the WG for the app or protocol instead. I was assuming, wrongly as it turns out, that the convention was known by (almost) everyone and so that those posting draft-johndoe-netmod-* fully intended it to go to the netmod WG, which seems to me quite wrong. The netmod WG has a well-defined remit and more than enough to do. (Perhaps the submitters just do not know the convention but I am sceptical of this). I was thinking even, although not saying, that 'netmod' is currently a special case and that the tools should prohibit the posting of a draft-johndoe-netmod* without the consent of a netmod WG chair, forcing submitters to think just where, in which WG, such an I-D could be discussed. But what to do when there is no suitable WG? perhaps such an I-D does not belong in the IETF. A different aspect of unhelpful draft names. Tom Petch </tp> 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. 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 > >