The author is the owner, and the IETF Trust is granted an unlimited copyright.
If you want to publish a draft on your blog or your website, you can call it
whatever you like. If you want to publish it on somebody else’s website (such
as the IETF), you might be required to conform to certain rules.
Yoav
On Mar 11, 2015, at 11:59 AM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
wrote:
Who is the owner of the draft the individual or the IETF?
What part of
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
is unclear?
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of Loa Andersson
<loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2015 7:49 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names
AB
Certainly if you want to submit a draft into an IETF owned repository,
IETF certainly have some rights to tell what file-name that can be used!
/Loa
On 2015-03-11 16:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Who is the owner of the draft the individual or the IETF? IMHO only the
owner has the right to make the name. The name may not be helpful to
IETF but is may be helpful for the owner. IMHO the problem of
unhelpfulness is because individual draft input should be distinguished
per IETF Area and not per draft-name.
So I suggest the IETF to fix the submission to ask the participant to
submit per Area and choose any name.
AB
On Monday, March 9, 2015, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
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
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64