I agree, IETF can request any thing but the issue is that submission is not directed per Area or per AD or per department, the IETF is doing it per name, so I think that is not correct.
AB
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote:
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