On 02/21/2014 02:59 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
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.
Agree. We have too many piddly rules that serve little or no purpose
already. As long as neither the identifier nor the listed authors in
the document are misleading, I don't see the need to impose further
restrictions on them.
Keith