Subject: Naming convention for a WG I-D that returns to individual submission?

From: Florent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:43:34 +0200

Hi all,

I am looking for procedural guidance on the naming convention to be 
followed for an Internet-Draft that has been adopted as a WG item and 
that has therefore been granted a name like 
draft-mybelovedwg-blabla-XX.txt but that is now returning to the 
individual submission status - be it that the WG finally abandoned this 
WG item after more technical investigations, that the WG rechartered 
making this former WG item now out of scope, etc.

Thus, this Internet-Draft should probably revert to a filename similar 
to draft-myfavoriteauthor-blibli-YY.txt, shouldn't it?

I couldn't unfortunately find any relevant text on this (though I tried 
RFC 2026 and http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt) :-(

Any feedback most welcome,
Many thanks in advance,

Florent

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:08:35 -0700

Florent,

F> Thus, this Internet-Draft should probably revert to a filename similar 
F> to draft-myfavoriteauthor-blibli-YY.txt, shouldn't it?

I don't recall seeing any guidance for choosing the full details of a
private I-D's name.

blibli-YY is chosen at the author's discretion. Having blibli be the
name of the working group has obvious benefits.

So, your thought on the choices sounds reasonable to me.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:28:14 +0200

Florent,
as in many other things, the IETF doesn't have a history of complete 
consistency.....

in the case of an existing WG abandoning an I-D, I'm sure that the next 
version of the I-D should be named draft-myfavouriteauthor-something (where 
"something" can easily contain the WG name if so desired).

Sometimes, when a WG is closed with outstanding I-Ds, and some of these are 
finished as individual submissions, we have allowed them to be updated 
keeping the old draft name. But that's the exception.

Makes sense?

                   Harald

--On 27. juli 2004 08:43 +0200 Florent 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thus, this Internet-Draft should probably revert to a filename similar to
> draft-myfavoriteauthor-blibli-YY.txt, shouldn't it?
>

---

From: Florent Bersani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:28:41 +0200

Harald,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> in the case of an existing WG abandoning an I-D, I'm sure that the 
> next version of the I-D should be named 
> draft-myfavouriteauthor-something (where "something" can easily 
> contain the WG name if so desired).
>
> Sometimes, when a WG is closed with outstanding I-Ds, and some of 
> these are finished as individual submissions, we have allowed them to 
> be updated keeping the old draft name. But that's the exception.
>
> Makes sense?

It makes a lot of sense: many thanks for the piece of advice :-)

Florent

P.S:

1) My original concern was that if a WG I-D has been abandoned, having 
it keep its draft-mybelovedWG-something name could be confusing.
     Indeed, people aware of the IETF naming convention for I-Ds but not 
of the history of this draft might misinterpret the status of this 
particular draft!
     And this was my case for a specific draft ;-) ...
    However, I also agree that making the abandoned WG I-D revert to an 
individual submission filename could also confuse by "hiding" the 
version numbers of the work that has possibly been done while it was a 
WG item.

2) My two cents: perhaps we could incorporate this in the Guidelines to 
Authors of Internet-Drafts (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt) 
in the submitting section, at the end of the second paragraph:
"If the document is abandoned as a working group document, it should be 
processed as an individual submission, where the filename will be 
draft-<yourname>-....txt".... but since I am not sure how often this 
occurs, such a precision may be more harmful than useful

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:46:21 -0700 (PDT)

clearly different rules apply, depending on whom makes the submission.

for example, several individual submissions were made before this
IETF and we (the authors) were told that we -MUST- use the name of
one of th eauthors in the draft name... however, we see that other
individual submissions are allowed to fabricate ID lables that do not
reflect any of the authors or any WG.  e.g.

draft-ymbk-downref-03.txt
draft-kolkman-dnsext-dnssec-in-band-rollover-00

of course, ymmv. I remain greatful for the opportunity to publish
ideas in this forum. 

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:34:45 -0700

Bill,

>draft-kolkman-dnsext-dnssec-in-band-rollover-00

There are also some drafts by someone called "manyfolks":

   draft-manyfolks-sipping-ToIP-01.txt
   draft-manyfolks-nsis-nslp-QSpec-00.txt
   draft-ietf-sip-manyfolks-resource-07.txt

Bob

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:59:45 +0200

hm.... do you think Olaf Kolkman has misspelled his name, or what?

and draft-ietf-sip-manyfolks is *formally* correct.

draft-ymbk has tradition, but it's likely to be crushed under the wheel of 
procedural correctness once the present batch is gone.

I don't know whether stopping "manyfolks" is right or not.

                 harald

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:19:23 +0200

What about an information draft reporting on the results of the work of an 
existing organization or project? Can it use the name of the organization 
and only quote as authors the actual writers? where/holw should the 
organization be introduced? Is there any difference if the draft is not for 
information?
thank you. jfc

PS. Can someone tell me which RFC says that a draft must include a security 
part?. thank you;

---

From: Sal Mangiapane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:03:48 -0400

> PS. Can someone tell me which RFC says that a draft must include a 
> security part?. thank you;

RFC2223 section 9

Sal

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:36:32 +0200

>>security part?. thank you;

Thank you. I was also looking for an RFC - if any -which documents why. To 
know what would be the proper process to introduce a comparable  addition 
to the drafts format.
jfc

---

From: Sal Mangiapane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:10:24 -0400

> Thank you. I was also looking for an RFC - if any -which documents why. 

There is RFC3552 which is the Security Considerations Best Practices but 
it doesn't answer the WHY question.

Sal

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:59:42 -0700

--On 31. juli 2004 11:19 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> What about an information draft reporting on the results of the work of
> an existing organization or project? Can it use the name of the
> organization and only quote as authors the actual writers?

that would require giving the secretariat a list of "acceptable" 
organizations - and some idea of when someone should be allowed to speak 
for them or not. We started down that route in the past, and decided not to 
go there any more.