To make it shorter, replying both, John, Jari and Paul …
I’ve been around since 2001, and since London/2001 never missed a single
meeting, and my memory may fail of course (usually don’t), but don’t
recall a single time where this convention was mention in a meeting, mail
exploder, nothing. When I started contributing with my own documents,
somehow, for me was obvious that the draft-00 title should be as much
self-explained as posible, and event temped to make it longer if needed
using for example “palet-v6ops-distributed-security” instead of
“palet-v6ops-ds”, etc., but just because this is the way I usually name my
files and folders in my own computer.
So yes, I guess this convention has been forgotten or not widely enough
spread out.
I don’t have a preference about an RFC versus the submission tool being
modified, but sadly, I don’t think this will be enough. Even if you find
the way to widely spread out the convention (which means posting in all
the WG exploders, general exploder, modifying newcomer slide sets, a few
IETF pages, etc.), possibly will not be enough, will take longer and will
not be so effective. Just an opinion, trying to be realistic.
An RFC enforces conventions, that’s it, and if that means when there is a
request to present in the WG for the first time a document, the chairs can
determine in a way as much objective as possible (an RFC) that it doesn’t
stick to the convention as indicated in the RFC, they can just come back
to the authors and suggest “you need to resubmit” with the correct naming
convention before presenting.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 22:26
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>, IETF
discussion
list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: Unhelpful draft names
--On Monday, March 09, 2015 21:58 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t
heard about that before Š
Jordi, once upon a time, before we had automatic submissions,
the convention was not only documented in the instructions to
I-D authors but enforced by the secretariat. Even inventions
like "ymbk" and "farresnickel" sometimes required a bit of
negotiating with the Secretariat and a document that had Jones
and Smith as authors and that was named
draft-jones-smith-CleverName-00 would, IIR, be rejected.
For the reasons Brian gives (and a few others), I'd very much
like to see the submission tools modified in much the way Paul
Hoffman suggests.
However, in recent years, I've tried raising this a few times
and have gotten no traction and more than one rude suggestion
that I just suck it up. The result is that I've largely
adopted the model implied by Brian's note -- I assume that, if I
can't figure out either who the author is or what a draft is
about, the author either wants to post an I-D but doesn't care
whether anyone reads it or not or is so busy being impressed by
his or her own cleverness that it is unlikely that the draft
contains anything of use. The observation that at least one
notorious troll periodically posted drafts with non-informative
names reinforce that view.
best,
john