[rfc-i] rfc docName for drafts

[jhildebr at cisco.com (Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr))]

I think it depends on the tools that you're using to produce the I-D today.  For example, I'm not seeing ".txt" in the draft name in draft-hildebrand-deth-00, neither in the version that I see in the I-D repo I rsync from ftp.rfc-editor.org::ids-text-only, nor nor in the versions I get from the datatracker at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hildebrand-deth/.  I used the Python version of xml2rfc to produce that text.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand


On 6/9/16, 12:49 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>It seems that, for drafts, the convention is for the docName to be the 
>filename of the text version of the draft. (E.g., draft-foo-bar-03.txt) 
>This then appears on the first page of the document. And it appears with 
>.txt even when the rendition of the document you are looking at isn't a 
>txt document.
>
>Is this convention universal, or is it just within the realm I inhabit.
>
>As we move to a world where the authoritative form isn't txt, and where 
>the form typically viewed isn't txt, ISTM that this convention ought to 
>be changed. Perhaps the file extension for the format should be omitted.
>
>Or perhaps this ought to contain the tracker name for the document 
>(without the version), though the version ought to be present somewhere 
>in the text of the document, regardless of format.
>
>	Thanks,
>	Paul
>_______________________________________________
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest