On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:04:26 AM -0500 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as draft-dawkins-foo-bar-00, as a
means of documenting an idea to see if a currently-operating WG
is interested in it. The WG is, the Chair, conforming to
current practice, says "when you do a revision based on the
comments you have received, post it as
draft-ietf-MyWG-foo-bar-00".
It's entirely up to the chair whether to follow that practice or not.
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).
I agree with Spencer - a filename is just a filename, and shouldn't carry
metadata. It should not be used as the way to decide what WG a document
belongs to, and it _also_ should not be used to decide whether a particular
submission is "initial" or not for the purposes of deadlines -- a rename of
an existing document should not require meeting the earlier deadline.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf