[Tools-discuss] When I have a draft that doesn't target a working group, I break things ...

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

I'm happy to have the response be some version of "if it hurts when you do
that, don't do that", but ...

I'm working on a draft (hasn't been submitted to the datatracker yet) using
kramdown-rfc2629 in github, and the I-D template tools.

The draft name in MD is draft-dawkins-sdp-rtp-quic-questions-latest. These
are the weird things that I've noticed so far.

Without trying to dig out when this happened, except when I submitted a
similarly-named draft on September 8 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-sdp-rtp-quic/), it wasn't
happening then, I am now getting

Discussion Venues <#name-discussion-venues>

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶ <#section-note.1-1>

Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list (), which is
archived at .¶ <#section-note.1-2>

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/SpencerDawkins/sdp-rtp-quic-questions.

between the Abstract and "Status of This Memo".  I'm guessing that one of
the various tools is now inserting this, and is unable to figure out what
the right mailing list is, because there's not an SDP mailing list (or
working group/research group, or somewhere in between).

(Here's the funny part - my draft is about SDP, which WOULD be in scope for
MMUSIC, except that the RTP people in AVTCORE need to see it first, and I
COULD send it to AVTCORE, except that we now ALSO have a "Media Over Quic"
non-working group mailing list that was created after IETF 111 ... you see
my problem, right?).

This is probably somewhat related, but when I clone the I-D template repo
and rename the draft, my CONTRIBUTING includes this:

Other Resources

Discussion of this work occurs on the sdp working group mailing list
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sdp/> (subscribe
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdp>). In addition to contributions
in GitHub, you are encouraged to participate in discussions there.

Note: Some working groups adopt a policy whereby substantive discussion of
technical issues needs to occur on the mailing list.

You might also like to familiarize yourself with other working group
documents <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sdp/documents/>.


So I'm thinking this was the result of a guess that "sdp'' was a working
group name, without checking to see if the working group exists. That's a
similar problem as the first one, but it's not the same.

Before I ask any more questions, should I be surprised by any of this?

Best,

Spencer