Re: Status of this memo

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/27/21 9:26 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>> Il 27/04/2021 10:41 Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
>>
>> There was a suggestion recently to not serve I-Ds from ietf.org domains until they were adopted by the IETF. Do you think serving individual drafts from another domain would help make that distinction clearer?
> URIs can help, because they are posted around to refer to documents, so they can contain prominent semantic "messages", either in the hostname or in the top path element. However, I think it would be even better to do this in the filename, as the filename persists even when the file is downloaded or attached. For example, you could reverse the order of the initial elements and things would already be much clearer:
>
> ietf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> irtf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> independent-draft-<author>-<subject>
Binding status to the name of the resource is a Bad Idea partially 
because the name can persist long after the status changes and partially 
because it can confer status prematurely.   Even expecting people to 
repost existing I-Ds with new names to reflect WG "adoption" is dubious.

And we really don't want to "bless" drafts before they have community 
consensus.

Keith