On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +0000, David Mitchell wrote:
>
> Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
> PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
> with a short string chosen by the author? This allows us to (hopefully)
> unqiuely refer to a document during disussions, but when a final winner
> is chosen and given a number, the offical library can still pretend the
> losers never existed, unless people look in the 'losers' section.
> EG
> PDD-dapm-GC
>
> rather than
>
> PDD-TDB
>
> for my attempt at garbage collection or whatever.
There are advantages with using simple enumeration for RFCs/PDDs. (I'll
beat that dead horse only upon request.)
The disadvantage of switching to a more descriptive naming scheme
is that any identification attached to a PDD upon receipt must be
final; a PDD cannot be renumbered/renamed once it has been accepted
into the archives. To do so would make it more difficult to search
the archives for discussion about an idea -- searching on PDD-std-vtbl
won't find the threads that lead to that standard, when it was
called PDD-sugalski-vtbl.
Perhaps a more descriptive prefix/suffix notation on PDDs would
improve upon the anonymous nature of RFCs/PDDs, so long as a core
name is assigned to a document never changes.
Z.
