Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
be as many entries in the revision history as the
revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
00, and so on).
don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier
to
publication of I-Ds
I-Ds are supposed to be a quick-and-dirty mechanism for
circulating (sometimes quite rough) drafts among interested parties.
we
don't need to impose a complicated revision history mechanism just
because we have two different cutoff dates for I-Ds. and there's
certainly no need to impose such a requirement on drafts that
(a) aren't WG work items and
(b) are submitted before the earlier cutoff date.
In fact, we only have two points of contentions: old personal drafts
submitted as version 00 of WG drafts; and old WG drafts submitted as
version 00 of new personal drafts.
The first scenario is easily taken care off by granting an exemption for
the cut off date. The secretariat is already supposed to ask WG chair
approval for WG drafts, and WG drafts almost never are "first drafts";
we could easily tell the secretariat that WG drafts are subject to the
same deadline as version N+1 drafts.
The second scenario requires being a little bit more proactive. Keeping
the version number while changing the prefix is probably a good idea.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf