The author is the owner, and the IETF Trust is granted an unlimited copyright. If you want to publish a draft on your blog or your website, you can call it whatever you like. If you want to publish it on somebody else’s website (such as the IETF), you might be required to conform to certain rules. Yoav > On Mar 11, 2015, at 11:59 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Who is the owner of the draft the individual or the IETF? > > What part of > > Copyright Notice > > Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the > document authors. All rights reserved. > > is unclear? > > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2015 7:49 PM > To: Abdussalam Baryun > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names > > 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 >