On Wed 05/Sep/2012 21:59:56 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM
<sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a more
sophisticated posting system that enforced the few rules we
already have, it would not have been accepted and posted in the
first place. Individual drafts are supposed to be title
draft-OneOfTheAuthorNames-foo-bar-NN. This one didn't meet that
rule.
The I-D /was/ named after one of the author names. Although expired,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed
is still accessible.
From the standpoint of those rules/conventions about naming at
least, it is as if I posted something as draft-moonesamy-foobar-00
or draft-carpenter-barfoo-00 in the hope that would get extra
attention.
I removed much more than I added, so putting my name would have been
overly selfish.
That said, the author in this particular case could presumably have
posted draft-vesely-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 and then
persuaded the Secretariat that it replaced
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00, thereby causing
the latter to be removed from the _active_ I-D repository and moved
off to the historical I-D archive.
That maneuver sounds more contrived than what I did. I thought about
posting a new version with null content, or possibly with tombstone
text, but that would still have left version 00 in place.
In order to invalidate an archived version, we'd need a process
mechanically similar to rfc-editor's "Errata". If visually winsome,
Errata's content could then be rendered the new way as well.