Re: Unhelpful draft names

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



AB

Certainly if you want to submit a draft into an IETF owned repository,
IETF certainly have some rights to tell what file-name that can be used!

/Loa

On 2015-03-11 16:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Who is the owner of the draft the individual or the IETF? IMHO only the
owner has the right to make the name. The name may not be helpful to
IETF but is may be helpful for the owner. IMHO the problem of
unhelpfulness is because individual draft input should be distinguished
per IETF Area and not per draft-name.

So I suggest the IETF to fix the submission to ask the participant to
submit per Area and choose any name.

AB

On Monday, March 9, 2015, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    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


--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]