Re: [datatracker-rqmts] What are WG drafts?

Henrik Levkowetz <> Wed, 03 November 2010 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B353A68C4 for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvgUi86Y2WHe for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2063A677D for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e]:55270 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1PDabJ-0001MN-3j; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:29:54 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:29:52 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <> <p0624089dc8f5f6f7256e@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624089dc8f5f6f7256e@[]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:21e:c2ff:fe13:7e3e
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] What are WG drafts?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:30:09 -0000

Hi Paul,

On 2010-11-02 18:14 Paul Hoffman said:
> At 9:15 AM -0700 11/2/10, Fred Baker wrote:
>> One of the slides wonders what the rule is for identifying drafts
>> associated with a working group. As I'm sure you know, there has
>> been a convention for a long time in naming:
>> draft-ietf-<wg>-*-nn.txt is a working group draft, and
>> draft-<author>-<wg>-*-nn.txt is an individual submission to a
>> working group. draft monikers that mention no working group are
>> general submissions going nowhere in particular. I'm pretty sure
>> that Henrik's existing tool looks for "draft-ietf-<wg>" and
>> "anything containing <wg>" for the two areas.
>> I like the convention; I find it useful. I do go a little crazy
>> with the set of people that don't choose to use it, though; I get
>> people posting drafts and then wanting to discuss them for several
>> meetings in my WG but not follow the convention, which means that I
>> have to manually track things. Since a "convention" is not a "rule"
>> (eg, I don't care to be a hard-ass about it), I put in the extra
>> work, but there is a part of me that would like the tool to be able
>> to remember for me in some sense. "documents that follow the
>> convention plus those I add".
> Henrik: I believe that some actual WG drafts do not follow the
> draft-ietf-wgname rule. Is that true? If so, how does the Datatracker
> know to show them in the WG charter page? Is that done by hand?

For WG drafts, the database has explicit data which identifies a draft
as belonging to the WG.  This is independent of the naming convention.
For individual drafts, there is currently no explicit tagging in the
database which tells us that a particular draft is 'related to' a
certain WG.