on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the
life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in
the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have
just had an RFC published from an I-D named as an individual submission,
and the work item we're currently spending most of our cycles on is
something we inherited from CAT which still has a draft-cat-* filename.
Ironically, the only confusion I'm aware of is in the part of Henrik's
excellent WG status pages, which don't recognize that these documents
belong to us (I understand he's working on a way to fix that).
Fixed as of today for active drafts. Unfortunately, this is based on
the information in 1id-index.txt, which only gives the draft -> WG
association for active drafts. Currently I don't have any good source
of draft -> WG associations for published, replaced or expired drafts.
One consequence of this is that the draft-ietf-cat-* document you refer
to is visible on the krb-wg draft status page now, but the published
individual submission is not.
(I haven't given up on rectifying this, too, but it isn't on the top of
the list currently.)
Ietf mailing list