Re: draft naming was RE: anti-harassment procedures

As long as (1) we have tools to map authors to documents for search and 
aggregation purposes anyway, (2) we maintain the reserved structure of 
draft-ietf-wg-* and other special second elements, I don't see any reason to 
further restrict the second element of the draft name.

This came in handy recently in IPPM, where we had multiple proposals for a 
performance metrics registry that started pretty widely separated from each 
other. It would have been arbitrary and inaccurate simply to choose an author 
name for each the (individual draft) stages of the convergence; the resulting 
draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry-00 is IMO accurately named. 

A policy strictly restricting element 2 to author names would have required us 
to waste energy on a "what do we want to name the band" discussion.

Regards,

Brian

On 21 Feb 2014, at 01:04, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

> On 21/02/2014 12:15, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> > I've often wished that the submission tool would check a table
> > for a small number of organizational tags (ietf, iab, etc.) and,
> > if the first string after "draft-" didn't appear there, check it
> > against the first author name.  
> Why only the first author? I don't think that restriction is called
> for.
>
> > It would be fairly easy to
> > verify that "draft-ietf-" was followed immediately by a
> > short-form WG name too.  
> I believe that is already checked, since draft-ietf-*-00 drafts have to
> be approved by a WG Chair, and that case is detected automatically.
>
>   Brian
>
> > If documents that didn't satisfy those
> > criteria went to manual posting and required an explanation to
> > the secretariat, I think the cutesiness would mostly stop in a
> > hurry.  If would also stop "draft-<made-up-organization>-..."
> > which, IMO, would be a real service to the community.
> >
> >    john

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail