Should there be provision in this naming scheme
for the merging of two individual drafts into
one wg draft ?
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:14:51 -0800
Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +0000, Dave Singer wrote:
a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other
reasons);
b) the revision number is NOT reset when the name is otherwise changed;
c) all drafts must include a revision history including the full name
under which each draft was presented.
this is in line with some other postings, and I think it is quite a good
summary. retaining
version history is a nice touch.
in terms of naming, I think syntactically it reduces to:
I-D-Name = "draft-" owner "-" category "=" title "-" version
owner = author-name / "ietf"
; who retains change control
author-name = { last name of first author }
category = working-group / topic
working-group = { IETF working group }
topic = { term under which I-D topic fits}
title = { text specific to this I-D, to describe it }
* Version 0 must be submitted some extra amount of time before an IETF
meeting.
* Use of the working group name is authorized by the working group chair and
represents an
explicit hand-off of change-control for the document, to the IETF.
* If a working group goes defunct, prior to RFC publication of the I-D,
"ownership" reverts to
the authors.
d/
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf