I will agree on that convention ? but to be honest, didn¹t heard about
that before ?
It may happen that more and more new folks are contributing and this is
not being encouraged in the newcomer talks, slide sets, etc. ?
Of course the alternative is to enforce it via an RFC, I guess in the
general area. It may be seen as too much, but if the convention has been
there already, I don¹t think is too much work neither too difficult to
make it happen quickly ?
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Organización: University of Auckland
Responder a: <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 21:49
Para: IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Unhelpful draft names
Hi,
It's one of those three days in the year when we get hundreds of drafts
announced
in succession, which makes the job of deciding which drafts a person
needs to
read harder than ever.
I have no idea what draft-xmss-00.txt is about and have no plans to find
out. But it seems to me that we have a fairly strong convention that
non-WG drafts should be named something like
draft-<author>-<generalTopic>-<specificTopic>
where the generalTopic is often a WG name, if there is a relevant WG.
Now I realise we don't want to be too rigid, e.g. the author component
is sometimes ymbk or farresnickel, but should we have a bit more
enforcement
in the tools, at least such that draft-oneWord-00 would not be acceptable?
Brian