Subject: Unhelpful draft names

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:49:58 +1300

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

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:58:47 +0100

I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t heard about
that before Š

It may happen that more and more new folks are contributing and this is
not being encouraged in the newcomer talks, slide sets, etc. ?

Of course the alternative is to enforce it via an RFC, I guess in the
general area. It may be seen as too much, but if the convention has been
there already, I don¹t think is too much work neither too difficult to
make it happen quickly ?

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:08:34 -0700

On Mar 9, 2015, at 1:58 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> there already, I donąt think is too much work neither too difficult to
> make it happen quickly ?

Why enforce this as an RFC? In order to turn in a draft, we use a tool. The tool could put up a "are you sure" dialog on a -00 where there are too few hyphens in the name, and when the first field is not "ietf" but is also not the name of one of the authors. The dialog could even have a few paragraphs about what is considered common, but still allow the submitter to click through.

An RFC for this might be considered too heavy-handed.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 23:08:49 +0200

Brian,

Are you suggesting that we should try to prevent the IETF
participants from being clever with the naming of their
drafts and protocols? Good luck with that :-)

I think the current status is actually pretty reasonable -
although if Jordi doesn’t know about the convention
then we should perhaps advertise it more widely.

However, I’m not sure stricter *rules* about 
the file names will buy us that much. And 
we already enforce the use of draft-ietf-* only
for adopted documents, which I think is the useful
case.

Personally, I look at the drafts that are discussed
on the list or are on the agenda, not because they
have someone’s name on them… in any case,
given that there are usually multiple authors,
looking for interesting material based on
someone’s last name isn’t really going to
work on merely based on the file name. Similarly,
often there is no working group yet for a topic,
so we end up with draft-someone-newtopic-00.txt.
I wouldn’t mind a warning based on seeing
draft-oneword-00.txt in the submission tool…
but I also wouldn’t it rate it very highly in the
overall priorities of tool support.

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:26:58 -0400

--On Monday, March 09, 2015 21:58 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I will agree on that convention Š but to be honest, didn¹t
> heard about that before Š

Jordi, once upon a time, before we had automatic submissions,
the convention was not only documented in the instructions to
I-D authors but enforced by the secretariat. Even inventions
like "ymbk" and "farresnickel" sometimes required a bit of
negotiating with the Secretariat and a document that had Jones
and Smith as authors and that was named
draft-jones-smith-CleverName-00 would, IIR, be rejected.

For  the reasons Brian gives (and a few others), I'd very much
like to see the submission tools modified in much the way Paul
Hoffman suggests.

However, in recent years, I've tried raising this a few times
and have gotten no traction and more than one rude suggestion
that I just suck it up.    The result is that I've largely
adopted the model implied by Brian's note -- I assume that, if I
can't figure out either who the author is or what a draft is
about, the author either wants to post an I-D but doesn't care
whether anyone reads it or not or is so busy being impressed by
his or her own cleverness that it is unlikely that the draft
contains anything of use.    The observation that at least one
notorious troll periodically posted drafts with non-informative
names reinforce that view.

best,
   john

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:06:46 +0200

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> out.

I like sticking to conventions. The authors of this draft are all first-timers, so they might be less familiar with such conventions. 

If this draft was called draft-Huelsing-cfrg-xmss-00.txt, would that make you more likely to fine out what it was about. How about if -cfrg- was omitted, leaving only draft-Huelsing-xmss?

Yoav

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:14:36 -0500

To fix this the authors should file a new I-D with a new handle, and
ask the Secretariat to mark the old one superseded by the new one.

> If this draft was called draft-Huelsing-cfrg-xmss-00.txt, would that make you more likely to fine out what it was about. How about if -cfrg- was omitted, leaving only draft-Huelsing-xmss?

The convention for individual-submission I-Ds that *are* primarily
related to a WG (e.g., because the author wants them to adopt the I-D
as a WG work item) to be named draft-authorlastname-wg-stuff.

If "xmss" is related to CFRG, then absolutely,
draft-huelsing-cfrg-xmss-00 would be much more useful than either the
original (draft-xmss-00) or draft-huelsing-xmss-00.  If it's not
related to any WG, then draft-huelsing-xmss-00 may be the best that
can be expected, though even then, maybe
draft-huelsing-security-xmss-00 would be a lot more useful.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:24:41 +0100

To make it shorter, replying both, John, Jari and Paul …

I’ve been around since 2001, and since London/2001 never missed a single
meeting, and my memory may fail of course (usually don’t), but don’t
recall a single time where this convention was mention in a  meeting, mail
exploder, nothing. When I started contributing with my own documents,
somehow, for me was obvious that the draft-00 title should be as much
self-explained as posible, and event temped to make it longer if needed
using for example “palet-v6ops-distributed-security” instead of
“palet-v6ops-ds”, etc., but just because this is the way I usually name my
files and folders in my own computer.

So yes, I guess this convention has been forgotten or not widely enough
spread out.

I don’t have a preference about an RFC versus the submission tool being
modified, but sadly, I don’t think this will be enough. Even if you find
the way to widely spread out the convention (which means posting in all
the WG exploders, general exploder, modifying newcomer slide sets, a few
IETF pages, etc.), possibly will not be enough, will take longer and will
not be so effective. Just an opinion, trying to be realistic.

An RFC enforces conventions, that’s it, and if that means when there is a
request to present in the WG for the first time a document, the chairs can
determine in a way as much objective as possible (an RFC) that it doesn’t
stick to the convention as indicated in the RFC, they can just come back
to the authors and suggest “you need to resubmit” with the correct naming
convention before presenting.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 22:26
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>, IETF discussion
list <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: Unhelpful draft names

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:44:32 -0400

Surprising. ..

> So yes, I guess this convention has been forgotten or not widely enough

http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html

Individual: A string related to the name of one of the authors in some way. 
There are no mechanical rules for this string but objectionable or 
misleading strings are subject to change or removal at the discretion of 
the Secretariat.Document name. For non-working group document.

Lou

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:46:45 -0400

> So yes, I guess this convention has been forgotten or not widely enough

As a counterpoint, the first draft I submitted was submitted in 2011 (so I'm a 
recent arrival) and I've never been to an IETF meeting except for occasional 
remote participation.  I knew about the naming convention (I've no idea how), 
so I'm surprised everyone doesn't know.

Scott K

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:51:07 -0400

There is some very good information in the Tao of the IETF.  See Section 6.3 for this topic.  it might be beefed up, but the major points are there.

Russ

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:10:07 -0600

It would be nice if at regular intervals a text summary of the new draft 
names with their Abstract in a single email were sent.

On 03/09/2015 02:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> -- 
> Doug Royer - (http://K7DMR.us / http://DougRoyer.US)
> [email-masked]
> 714-989-6135

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:16:07 +0100

Looking at http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html as Lou suggested,
and also at 6.3.2 of the TAO as suggested by Russ, seems that is “almost”
clear. May be we should encourage to make the filename longer if that make
it more explicit, and clarify that full author name(s) should be used (if
not already there and I missed it in a quick read).

I guess the folks that have been there for long time, missed the I-D
guidelines (2010) that Russ wrote up. Mea culpa.

Probably when you have been reading a lot of documents since long time,
even before started contributing, we just acquired the “habit” to use the
convention w/o knowing it.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 23:44
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>, IETF discussion
list <[email-masked]>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Mar 2015 01:45:44 -0000

>names with their Abstract in a single email were sent.

Please, no, not another monthly message that nobody reads.

If this is worth fixing, we can add some name checking heuristics to
the I-D nits checker.  It'd presumably only apply to non-WG -00 drafts,
with an option for manual override like with the confirmation e-mail
addresses.

But I suspect that for most people, given a choice of waiting to get a
draft in with an arcane clever name, or giving it a boring normal name
and getting it in right now, the problem will usually solve itself.

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:36:59 +1300

> drafts and protocols? Good luck with that :-)

I wouldn't want to do that, for sure.

> then we should perhaps advertise it more widely.

Yes. And the draft submission page would be a good place to
have a pointer to the advertisement.

> for adopted documents, which I think is the useful

I wouldn't go further than having the tool throw up an
"Are you sure?" dialogue box if it sees a name with only
one component after "draft-".

    Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:45:09 +0900

>> However, I’m not sure stricter *rules* about the file names will buy
>> us that much. And we already enforce the use of draft-ietf-* only for
>> adopted documents, which I think is the useful case.
> I wouldn't go further than having the tool throw up an "Are you sure?"
> dialogue box if it sees a name with only one component after "draft-".

more code, more bugs, more barriers.  and this will increase the quality
of the content how?

randy

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:56:46 -0400

As Yoav mentioned, the authors are new attendees, and the work is targeted
to an IRTF group at that. I have an acquaintance with them and hope they
aren't reading this, but how do folks think this outcry about seems as a
welcome to do work here?
On Mar 9, 2015 10:37 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:15:51 +1300

Allison,

> aren't reading this, but how do folks think this outcry about seems as a

I worried about that before sending my note, but decided that an invented
example was not persuausive. If there's a fault, it's "ours" for not
making the convention a bit more apparent to newcomers. That's what needs
fixing.

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:19:25 -0400

--On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 16:15 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I worried about that before sending my note, but decided that
> an invented example was not persuausive. If there's a fault,
> it's "ours" for not making the convention a bit more apparent
> to newcomers. That's what needs fixing.

+1

And, of course, a modification to the tool that would explain
the convention and ask "are you sure" (as I think you and John
Levine suggested), would provide the desired education without
giving anyone an excuse to feel beaten up on.

--On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:45 +0900 Randy Bush
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> more code, more bugs, more barriers.  and this will increase
> the quality of the content how?

If we assume that not everyone has time to open every
announcement and read the abstract, then helping people figure
out which drafts they should be trying to follow might improve
the quality of review by improving efficiency and the time that
could be spent on reviews as compared to mail-filtering.  I
assume the IETF still believes that more review by people with
relevant expertise and perspective is desirable and improves
content/output quality.

    john

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:48:38 -0600

On 03/09/2015 07:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Please, no, not another monthly message that nobody reads. ...
>

Well then maybe a single automatically generated web page with that 
information updated. I find it really annoying to have to click on each 
email to find the real subject, just to figure out if I want to read it. 
The data could be updated as they are emailed, and older data dropped off.

How many of them to really read? How many of them do you ignore because 
your guess about what it contains is incorrect? Do you really want 100 
or so new draft emails that you have to look at, or one summary page?

I used to read all the drafts (early 80's), now I barley read the email 
subject lines. A really great idea could have been published with a bad 
draft name, so nobody read it.

I am more interested in the application working groups, but I have to 
read each email to find the group.

--

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:38:35 +0900

> I worried about that before sending my note, but decided that an
> invented example was not persuausive. If there's a fault, it's "ours"
> for not making the convention a bit more apparent to newcomers. That's
> what needs fixing.

i would mention being liberal in what you receive.  but, as a staunch
naggumite, i do not believe that is wise in protocol code.  but this
ain't code.

and i think you were a co-author of the first or second draft-ymbk-...
(it's an old joke.  when megan asked us to insert the organisation name,
jon said "you must be kidding."  so i used that.)

randy

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:15:34 +0000

---- Original Message -----
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:24 PM

I’ve been around since 2001, and since London/2001 never missed a single
meeting, and my memory may fail of course (usually don’t), but don’t
recall a single time where this convention was mention in a  meeting,
mail
exploder, nothing.

<tp>

Jordi

Coincidentally, I posted to this list two days ago and mentioned just
this topic of naming convention for I-Ds.

My concern was about unhelpful draft names, but not quite in the sense
that Brian raised.  Rather, my concern was seeing a growing number of
drafts entitled
draft-johndoe-netmod-some-app-or-protocol
my concern being that these should never go to the netmod WG but to the
WG for the app or protocol instead.

I was assuming, wrongly as it turns out, that the convention was known
by (almost) everyone and so that those posting draft-johndoe-netmod-*
fully intended it to go to the netmod WG, which seems to me quite wrong.
The netmod WG has a well-defined remit and more than enough to do.
(Perhaps the submitters just do not know the convention but I am
sceptical of this).

I was thinking even, although not saying, that 'netmod' is currently a
special case and that the tools should prohibit the posting of a
draft-johndoe-netmod* without the consent of a netmod WG chair, forcing
submitters to think just where, in which WG, such an I-D could be
discussed.  But what to do when there is no suitable WG? perhaps such an
I-D does not belong in the IETF.

A different aspect of unhelpful draft names.

Tom Petch

</tp>
When I started contributing with my own documents,
somehow, for me was obvious that the draft-00 title should be as much
self-explained as posible, and event temped to make it longer if needed
using for example “palet-v6ops-distributed-security” instead of
“palet-v6ops-ds”, etc., but just because this is the way I usually name
my
files and folders in my own computer.

IETF pages, etc.), possibly will not be enough, will take longer and
will

An RFC enforces conventions, that’s it, and if that means when there is
a
request to present in the WG for the first time a document, the chairs
can
determine in a way as much objective as possible (an RFC) that it doesn’
t
stick to the convention as indicated in the RFC, they can just come back
to the authors and suggest “you need to resubmit” with the correct
naming
convention before presenting.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2015, 22:26
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>, IETF discussion
list <[email-masked]>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:09:43 +0000

On unhelpful draft names that are hard to identify

draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt

should clearly have been called draft-farrelly-brothers-mpls...

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood

mpls encryption? I mean, dumb and dumberererer, right?
________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015 5:38:35 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:13:08 +0900

> mpls encryption? I mean, dumb and dumberererer, right?

put the P into mpls-based v_ns

randy

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:48 +0200

I will talk to the tools team about possibly adding support to 
warn about unconventional names to the submission/nits tools.
The request will go to our overall list of features that we’d like
to see.

We also have an upcoming code sprint on the Saturday 
before the IETF, where you all can add this and other features :-)

Jari

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:05:00 +0000

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:48 PM, Doug Royer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Well then maybe a single automatically generated web page with that information updated.

Like http://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt  /  ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.txt? or perhaps http://www.ietf.org/id/1id-index.txt / ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-index.txt?

That’s all of the drafts, not just the new ones. “New” requires some concept of “new since when”.

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:24:09 -0400

On 3/10/15, 1:48 AM, "Doug Royer" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>your guess about what it contains is incorrect?

This is a solved problem, but the fact that this hasn't been mentioned yet
makes me think that it's not easy to find if you don't go looking for it.
http://tools.ietf.org/group/tools/trac/wiki/AtomFeeds

It includes the abstract, so one doesn't need to guess by the draft name
whether it's something of interest.
If anything, it might be nice to further carve up what we offer in RSS so
that you can subscribe to feeds by area or by WG, as even with RSS, the
signal to noise ratio in the couple of days before draft deadline is
almost unmanageable.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:45:51 +0000

Nobody’s perfect.  I’ve been around the IETF since before there were IDs
and recently I managed to not get it quite right, which is why there is
currently both a draft-borman-tcp4way-00.txt and a
draft-borman-tcpm-tcp4way-01.txt.

Rather than focusing only on making sure everyone follows the conventions the
the right way the first time, it’d be nice to have an easy way to fix it.
When submitting an ID, it’d be nice to be able to specify a different named
document that this one replaces, so that the old one would be removed when
the new one is posted, just as what happens today when a new revision is
posted.  The tool already notifies the authors of the previous revision
when a new revision is posted, it could do the same thing for the previously
named document.  That way the rename wouldn’t happen unless the previous
author approved it.

And as previously suggested, a pop-up window to just say “are you sure?” with
a couple of examples if the name doesn’t follow the conventions would be useful
to prevent some mistakes, but a rename would allow mistakes to be easily fixed
and get the old name out of the I-Ds directory.

		-David Borman 

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Allison,
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum. Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:16:54 -0600

On 03/10/2015 08:05 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Like http://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt  ...
>

Great start, but I got over 100 ID notice emails this last weekend and I 
can not tell from that list when they arrived.

Maybe if the index wad a sub-indexed by release date. Yes, the 'new 
since when' is my issue with that list.
  draft id-abstract.txt has about 2,469 lines with 'draft-' in them, 
which are new?

--

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:24:01 +0000

> names with their Abstract in a single email were sent.
It wouldn't be wholly stupid to have this kind of thing alongside the NOTE
WELL.

That is, our current NOTE WELL essentially says, "Here's some key legal
requirements. There's more <here>" It could also say "This is an IETF list,
and we work like this. More <there>."

Dave.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:27:46 -0600

On 03/10/2015 08:24 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> This is a solved problem, but the fact that this hasn't been mentioned 
> yet makes me think that it's not easy to find if you don't go looking 
> for it. http://tools.ietf.org/group/tools/trac/wiki/AtomFeeds ...

Thanks, I had not found those links.

The http://tools.ietf.org/html/new-rfcs.rss is great, but more 'Recent' 
that when?

The 'Recent Internet-Drafts by WG' only links to the TLS WG. 
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/new-ids.rss) 
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/new-ids.rss>
Maybe the Tools Wiki Page has a typo in it?

--

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:59:01 -0700

> warn about unconventional names to the submission/nits tools.

Will there be a prize aware for the submission of the best regex?

seems like a hackathon task.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:40:40 +0200

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

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:49:30 +0800

AB

Certainly if you want to submit a draft into an IETF owned repository,
IETF certainly have some rights to tell what file-name that can be used!

/Loa

On 2015-03-11 16:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> 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.
>
> On Monday, March 9, 2015, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:22:24 +0200

Loa,

I agree, IETF can request any thing but the issue is that submission is not
directed per Area or per AD or per department, the IETF is doing it per
name, so I think that is not correct.

AB

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:59:58 +0000

> Who is the owner of the draft the individual or the IETF?

What part of

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

is unclear?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2015 7:49 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names

AB

/Loa

--

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:15:30 +0200

The author is the owner, and the IETF Trust is granted an unlimited copyright. 

If you want to publish a draft on your blog or your website, you can call it whatever you like. If you want to publish it on somebody else’s website (such as the IETF), you might be required to conform to certain rules.

Yoav

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 11:59 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:55:05 -0400

> The author is the owner, and the IETF Trust is granted an unlimited copyright. 

That doesn't make sense.   The owner is the person who is named in the copyright.   If the copyright refers to the IETF trust, then the IETF trust is being called the owner.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:08:20 +0200

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Making sense is never a requirement where the law is concerned. 

RFC 5378 says in section 3.1 (Rights Granted in Contributions):

   The IETF Trust and the IETF must obtain the right to publish an IETF
   Contribution as an RFC or an Internet-Draft from the Contributors.

...

   The authors retain all other rights, but cannot withdraw the above
   rights from the IETF Trust and the IETF.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Mar 2015 17:21:50 -0000

>The author is the owner, and the IETF Trust is granted an unlimited copyright. 

Uh, no.

>>   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Quite a lot, actually.  But it's all explained in RFC 5378.

Contributors hold the copyright to their drafts, and grant a broad but
limited license (which is not the same as a copyright) to the IETF
Trust.  The final RFC is a derivative work made by the IETF from the
draft, which is why the RFC has a joint copyright notice.

To return to the original question, the IETF has no obligation to
accept contributions from anyone.  If we wanted to make a rule that
every I-D has to have the word "pickle" in the name, we could.

R's,
John

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:26:36 +0200

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:21 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Other than my using the word copyright wrong, you (and RFC 5378) say the same thing.

> every I-D has to have the word "pickle" in the name, we could.

And it’s high time we did.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:27:01 -0400

> draft, which is why the RFC has a joint copyright notice.

Thanks for the clarity, John.   That was what I thought, but I was too lazy to go look it up.   :)

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 06:13:21 +0000

One would hope that mpls vpns do better than hop-by-hop opportunistic encryption.

Mpls is for traffic engineering, and that engineering seems at odds with opportunistic encryption.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015 11:13:08 PM
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unhelpful draft names

randy