--On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:42 +0000 "Fred Baker
(fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
It is described.
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#naming and Section
7 of http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
Yes, if one knows where to find them. Now, how many people who
submit I-Ds, especially those who are new to the IETF within the
last half-dozen years, are aware of those pages? If we are
serious about those guidelines, why isn't there a prominent
statement on the I-D Submission page and/or the "Internet
Drafts" page accessed from the main IETF page
(http://www.ietf.org/id-info/) indicating that there are
guidelines (not just for naming) and that people are expected to
follow them (at least unless there is strong reason to not do
so) and providing a link. There _is_ a "Guidelines" link on the
latter, but it is about as non-prominent as one could make it
and gives not hint that people really need to read it before
writing I-Ds.
Why are those rules apparently being ignored regularly with
absolutely no ill effects to the authors?
We can't be taking them seriously when at least two IESG members
have posted using the
draft-CyrpticNameCombination-mytopic
form in recent years and then pushed the documents through to
BCP or Standards Track status?
Conversely, if we don't want to depend on naming conventions, we
could require that I-Ds either identify a workgroup in the
header or explicitly contain a [to be removed on RFC
publication] section or subsection with a reserved title that
specifies the discussion locale. It the authors of a particular
document have no clue or don't intend community discussion, let
them say so. The presence of that header of section title would
be really easy for the submission tool to check.
best,
john