Subject: RE: MARID back from the grave?

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:22:36 -0800

> > Thanks.  I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
> > be as many entries in the revision history as the
> > revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
> > 00, and so on).
> 
> don't do that.  it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier
to
> publication of I-Ds
> 
> I-Ds are supposed to be a quick-and-dirty mechanism for
> circulating (sometimes quite rough) drafts among interested parties.
we
> 
> don't need to impose a complicated revision history mechanism just
> because we have two different cutoff dates for I-Ds.  and there's
> certainly no need to impose such a requirement on drafts that
> (a) aren't WG work items and
> (b) are submitted before the earlier cutoff date.

In fact, we only have two points of contentions: old personal drafts
submitted as version 00 of WG drafts; and old WG drafts submitted as
version 00 of new personal drafts. 

The first scenario is easily taken care off by granting an exemption for
the cut off date. The secretariat is already supposed to ask WG chair
approval for WG drafts, and WG drafts almost never are "first drafts";
we could easily tell the secretariat that WG drafts are subject to the
same deadline as version N+1 drafts.

The second scenario requires being a little bit more proactive. Keeping
the version number while changing the prefix is probably a good idea.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:32:33 -0500

> same deadline as version N+1 drafts.

makes sense.

(we could even adopt a rule that says that WG drafts shall not be -00 
drafts - IMHO WGs should always see the first draft of something before 
they decide to adopt it)

> the version number while changing the prefix is probably a good idea.

and if the author doesn't ask to keep the old version number when he 
changes the filename, he gets stuck with the earlier deadline.

Keith

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:16:56 +0100

> version 00 of new personal drafts.

now that we know that the secretariat keeps track of drafts that claim to 
obsolete another draft, we could make this Real Simple:

drafts that say they obsolete another draft get the later deadline.

                          Harald (who won't have to decide that)