--On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 04:25 +0000 "Fred Baker
(fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Nico Williams
<nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com> wrote:
A lot of WGs and WG work items start life as individual
submission I-Ds. The tracker nowadays tracks their
transformation into WG work items.
yes, but... there are individual submissions and individual
submissions.
A draft named "draft-myname-mytopic" is a draft on mytopic
submitted by byname. A draft named
"draft-myname-targetgroup-mytopic" is a draft on mytopic
submitted by byname to targetgroup.
In the first case, the onus is pretty much on the author to
get someone to read it. In the second case, assuming a working
group or other list is notified, can reasonably expect someone
to actually read it.
Fred, I think this is a great model and that close
approximations to it have served us well in the past. However,
since we have gone to an automated system, there is no
enforcement of that naming model, even by takedown, and it is
not even well-publicized. If we were serious about it, it
should at least be described somewhere (the posting page if
nowhere else), software should make at least a minimal effort to
remind people of it (e.g., when a draft is uploaded who third
component matches a WG or similar acronym, the posting software
might explicitly ask if that targetgroup is an intended target
and, if desired, send out an announcement to that group), and/or
there should be a takedown procedure for documents whose names
deviate from the rules sufficiently to create confusion.
Instead, we have seen
draft-authorname1-authorname2-targetgroup-mytopic
draft-crypticacronym-mytopic
draft-MadeUpOrganization-MadeUpGroup-CrypticTopic
etc., which don't help.
john