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

Fred Baker <> Tue, 02 November 2010 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E48728C130 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.542
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dty-a1-tthP6 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6AA3A69F5 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMLmz0yrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbAChWHGkRpwJhUUEhFeFfoMI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,283,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="376726914"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2010 17:28:13 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA2HSBPP000928; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:28:13 GMT
Received: from [] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:28:13 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:28:13 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <>
In-Reply-To: <p0624089dc8f5f6f7256e@[]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:28:04 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <> <p0624089dc8f5f6f7256e@[]>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:28:12 -0000

On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> 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?

Drafts that the secretariat understands to be working group drafts follow the convention. To test that assertion, pick a working group and try filing a draft named draft-ietf-<wg>-*.txt. You will find the secretariat contacting the chair for permission to post it.

That doesn't stop chairs from treating individual submissions to the working group as if they were working group drafts. I suspect we all do that; I know I do for small projects that are within charter but have a relatively narrow interest group. Where it gets crazy is people who disregard the convention entirely, as the tools have no organizing handle. A part of me wants to tell them to get their act together.