Re: Unhelpful draft names

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 11 March 2015 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FD01A7030 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOUc_QSheJzn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1371A010C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgfi50 with SMTP id i50so8240045qgf.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bucfr5jhFP2dSIne4jEtLvRUlcVLYb1tkhVzX3KeSbQ=; b=dajpn84FF0us1vecgkCFMRLXTKyTkmhCPegHjUGgJ59xObXnngygNiZtCi7URN9emT RkgMzRNfVy19e5Xdq4qEpCIx+EdS11/EjLUOjT/xZ539D8vduUJHR49vxdSrCZu5HlMo oiXrETxm3b5Eibt/TUObiYPeGi7GK3H2PkPyQmhdNbePvcNo1MRNLsrE09jO5rxkMxx1 dk8YhMa4jLUyst8xafNaziokLp677ur1HyCrhQEY9bcyGjxYo/MkDXj0G8x1IzboSyUP IY8L/Orho945UOO1osorlMDx0JIpZOwhtvMO3m/q877HAecysfvx6D8evqs5cp2ysc/9 ph5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.42.39 with SMTP id q39mr55499359qkh.99.1426063240220; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54FE0776.8070300@gmail.com>
References: <54FE0776.8070300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:40:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-P_am8p2vjYd7sLHLvjwTVts6V6pgC3XO7yxjST_FJsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11494270dc557d0510ff3862"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q-_YQ0G_gz5lDBHQGsgPzMHADZE>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:45:48 -0000

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.e.carpenter@gmail.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
>
>