--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 13:23 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
...
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.
Perhaps that is just my point. What we have managed to do to
ourselves is to decide that some filenames, but not others, do
carry metadata, and then have developed some rules around those
names and metadata that are, arguably, not good for the
standards process.
The notion that new documents were required to be posted a week
earlier than updated ones seemed like a good idea at the time
(and I bear some of the blame) because the secretariat was
spending much more processing, and rule-verification time on the
new ones than on the updates. But then we introduced all of
this other baggage associated with metadata and semantics and,
at the same time, the secretariat stopped doing significant
checking of _documents_. Whether your WG's strategy of just
leaving everything as a individually-named draft is a good
general principle or just an effective workaround for an
administrative problem, it seems to me that we shouldn't have
procedures that put significant barriers in the way of new WG
drafts. As you put it, renaming an existing document, or
producing a closely-coupled revision of it, should not advance
the posting deadline from two weeks to a month.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf