There is some very good information in the Tao of the IETF. See Section 6.3
for this topic. it might be beefed up, but the major points are there.
Russ
On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:58 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t heard about
that before Š
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