I'm not smart about the definition of "fair" in an IETF context, but
it's also worth noting that
- as Steve Coya pointed out every IETF meeting for years during the WG
chair training, there is NO linkage between what the filename is and
whether it's a WG draft or not. The WG name is listed in a separate
field in the database, and any draft with a WG name in that field,
regardless of the file name, is listed on the WG charter page,
- every time we rename an individual draft when it becomes a WG draft,
we make it harder to trace versions of the new draft back to versions
of the old draft (I am a Gen-ART reviewer and usually look at previous
versions of a draft at Last Call time, to see what's been changing),
- every time we rename a draft because it moves from one working group
to another, we make it harfer to trace versions of the new draft back
to versions of the old draft (ditto),
- the reason we rename individual drafts seems to be that there are so
many drafts that a large number of participants base decisions to
review a draft on whether they THINK that it's a WG draft - and
there's no other information about whether a draft is a WG draft,
except the filename, in the ID Announcement.
I should also point out that if you haven't looked at
http://www.ietf.org/ID.html in the past month, it now includes a
pointer to a "New Internet-Drafts Database Interface", so someone is
being busy in this area currently...
Maybe we could improve the announcements to say what the WG (WGs?) are
for a draft, and we could quit twisting in this self-inflicted wind?
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: MARID back from the grave?
What is particularly ironic is that these I-Ds began as individual
submissions and we were asked to bring them in, under Marid, just in
for the working group to be disbanded.
We have seen that situation before, for example when the NGTRANS
group was disbanded. Some of the work was picked up by a new working
group, but to start with a clean base all drafts had to be resubmitted
as individual contribution. At this point, we get the deadline effect:
work that in reality is a revision has now to meet the "original
submission" deadline. That's not very fair. In these conditions, there
should be some kind of automatic exemption, maybe by allowing drafts
use an N+1 version number.
-- Christian Huitema
Ietf mailing list