Le 15/06/2018 à 11:48, Julian Reschke a écrit :
On 2018-06-15 11:01, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
...
Yes, from an abstract layer.
But from a mundane point of view:
Among 'draft-person.txt' and 'draft-person'
which one is a 'full draft name'?
...
See
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#element.rfc.attribute.docName>.
Please, if you want feedback from me, do not point me to URLs. URLs
take time to click, and are invisible after some time whereas the
message is still visible.
Better - paste the content here, so I can reply to it.
Of course, you are free to walk me back and forth between all sites of
the Internet and wikipedia, and I will take advantage of that walking
back and forth to maybe check whether it is secure, or whether it is
IPv6 or just IPv4, or others.
But if we want to stay to the point, and if we are open to remarks and
difficulties, and if we want to be kind to the humble submitter, then we
listen.
That website says:
2.33.3. "docName" Attribute
For Internet-Drafts, this specifies the draft name (which appears below the title).
A processor should give an error if both the "docName" and "number" attributes are given in the <rfc> element.
Note that the file extension is not part of the draft
How comes a file extension is not part of the draft?
Maybe it is not part of the draft _name_?
Nobody expects a file extension to be part of the draft (contents of
that draft.)
Alex
, so in general it should end with the current draft number ("-", plus
two digits).
Furthermore, it is good practice to disambiguate current editor copies from submitted drafts (for instance, by replacing the draft number with the string "latest").
See Section 7 of [IDGUIDE] for further information.
Best regards, Julian
