Re: [v6ops] IETF 92 heads Up

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:12 AM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Individual Submission NOT updated since IETF:
>>>> 
>>>> Aug 24  draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem
>>> 
>>> I've seen this draft be usefully referred to a couple of times in
>>> the last few months.  +1 to keeping it afloat, if not moving
>>> forward for some reason (cc'ing Joel explicitly).
>> 
>> Up to Joel. If folks tell us it should be a working group draft, it
>> can be resubmitted as draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem, following
>> the naming guideline that IETF tools depend on. Or whatever.
> 
> I am happy to undertake a revision, or encourage my co-authors to do so.

That would be fine.

> I throw myself at the mercy of the chairs with respect to the title.

I’m working from http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#naming and the fact that IETF tools depend on this.

Drafts can be named one of three ways:
    draft-ietf-<wg>-*-nn.txt       A working group draft
    draft-<author>-<wg>-*-nn.txt   An individual submission to a working group
    draft-<author>-*-nn.txt        An individual submission not targeted to a specific working group

The guidelines have a number of special "authors", such as -iab-, -iaoc-, and so on.

When you file a draft as draft-ietf-v6ops-*-00.txt, the working group chairs get a question from the secretariat: "is this an authorized working group draft?" If we say "yes", it's allowed to be posted, and if we say "no" or don't say anything, it doesn't. Once the -00 is posted, it can be updated at will. The status also show up in the data tracker: if you look up https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=v6ops&activedrafts=on&sort=, drafts named draft-ietf-v6ops-* are listed as "WG Documents", and other documents aren't. IETF tools depend on that naming - WG status is not a separate attribute (although I would prefer that it was), it is carried in the name of the draft.

My personal tools are a little more forgiving; if I find the character string "v6ops" anywhere in the name, I consider it related to v6ops somehow. In part, that is because we sometimes get documents with names like draft-tom-dick-harry-v6ops-*, that completely screw the naming guidelines. We also sometimes get documents that are individual submissions without respect to a working group that are shopped to several working groups. I'm perfectly willing to see people drop a note to the list saying "I filed draft-myname-stuff-i-am-worried-about, and wonder what the operational folks think", or for that matter drafts from other working groups, and if folks ask, we may fit those into an agenda somewhere. But if it has the word "v6ops" in the name, I electronic ear-equivalents perk up, my bot sends a note to the working group and a separate note to the authors, and it automatically shows up in my agenda analysis.

But really. We decided to accept this as a working group draft. I'm looking for a document with a name like draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem.