Subject: [arcmedia] data tracker issue?

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 08:17:54 +1000

Hi again folks,

Something felt a bit weird while I was rebuilding and submitting the -01
draft, and it's just occurred to me what it was.

On Oct 27 last year two almost identical -00 versions were submitted, at
about the same time, named -seantek-kerwin- and -arcmedia-. Presumably the
latter is the one we want, but according to tools.ietf.org the
individually-named version supersedes the WG-named.

Is this an issue?

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:38:20 -0400

As no one's responded yet:

It always helps to use full draft names, so we're sure what you're
talking about.  I presume you're referring to these:

draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type
draft-arcmedia-type

The issue here is that the second name does not fit in with the naming
conventions we use (which is that working group documents are called
"draft-ietf-WGNAME-xx-yy", and individual drafts are called
"draft-AUTHORNAME-xx-yy" -- with the further convention that if the
first token after "AUTHORNAME" matches a working group name, the draft
is considered "related to" that working group).

So "draft-arcmedia-type" should never have been posted, and shouldn't
be updated, and draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type is the one to go
with.  Unfortunately, by listing the two authors separately in the
name, you'll lose the advantage of having the tools associate that
draft with this working group as "related".  (A name such as
draft-seantekkerwin-arcmedia-type (without the dash between the names)
would have worked better, but never mind.)

The next step is to get a working-group version that Dave can approve,
which will be called "draft-ietf-arcmedia-type", submit that with
Dave's approval, and mark it as replacing
draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type.

The draft naming stuff can be a bit odd to newcomers to the IETF, but
whatever happens usually isn't a big deal.

Barry

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> arcmedia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcmedia
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:57:21 -0700

> draft-seantek-kerwin-arcmedia-type.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

The above is the essential point:

     As of now, the wg has no draft.

     The revised 'personal' draft needs to be REVIEWED BY THE WORKING
GROUP and approved for adoption by the wg.  The chair (me) does the
mechanics of approving the document into the working group's online
space for documents, but it's based on working group rough consensus.

So that everyone is clear:  IETF working group "Adoption" is not an
approval of the content of the draft, but rather agreement to use the
document as a base for the work of the group.

To emphasize:

     We need to see enough comments posted about the draft to determine
that there is real breadth and depth of interest in it.

     That is, we need to see activity that shows there is some real
range of different people active in the topic and that that range has
rough consensus to adopt the document.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net