Reality check: there's a draft in last call about a proposed
tool for submitting drafts. Specific comments on that draft
would be very useful, possibly more so than tuning the ABNF
for file names.
Brian
The IESG has received a request from the TOOLS team to consider the
following document:
- '
> Date: 2005-02-25 22:14
> From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> in terms of naming, I think syntactically it reduces to:
>
>
>  I-D-Name    = Â"draft-" owner "-" category "=" title "-" version
> Â
>  owner     Â= Âauthor-name / "ietf"
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â; who retains change con
At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs (not
counting BOFs) have agendas posted. I'm at a loss for a suitable adjective.
You might start by asking the secretariat why all the agendas which have
been submitted haven't been posted... I know of two working groups which
h
> Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract
> for what the working group will work on / develop.
yup. in fact, the language you use is commonly used to describe the charter
and to justify being so forceful in making it clear and plausible.
> When a working
On 2 Mar 2005, at 12:39, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I'd like to add-on to Spencer's point...
At 6:14 AM -0600 3/2/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- Most important - we expect people to read the drafts before
discussing them at face-to-face meetings, and thought that
considering drafts submitted this mo
My LORD, it's like I read Margaret's mind... I hadn't seen this post
when I sent my own whine to the list!
Spencer
I'd like to add-on to Spencer's point...
At 6:14 AM -0600 3/2/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- Most important - we expect people to read the drafts before
discussing them at face-to-fa
I'd like to add-on to Spencer's point...
At 6:14 AM -0600 3/2/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- Most important - we expect people to read the drafts before
discussing them at face-to-face meetings, and thought that
considering drafts submitted this morning didn't give working groups
enough time to do
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)
That would only work if it was "s
--On tirsdag, mars 01, 2005 22:34:08 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
At 10:34 PM +0100 3/1/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On lørdag, februar 26, 2005 21:22:36 -0800
Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact, we only have two points of contentions: old personal drafts
submitted as version 00 of WG drafts; and old WG draft
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On lørdag, februar 26, 2005 21:22:36 -0800 Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
n
I think I overstated what I was looking for. I often see requests
like "I saw -03, this is -05, what as -04 and what has changed?" on
the mailing lists. I was just thinking that a section like this would
help (names are just examples)
Change history:
draft-ietf-dxs-odorimeter-0525-jun-200
At 10:14 PM -0500 2/26/05, Keith Moore wrote:
> 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
--On lørdag, februar 26, 2005 21:22:36 -0800 Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
now that we know that the secreta
Keith Moore wrote:
IMHO, charters should not be bound to specific documents. It's one
thing to say "WG X will produce a document describing protocol Y", quite
another to say "WG X shall publish
draft-ietf-x-joe's-specification-for-y". It's up to the WG, not the
ADs, to decide which specific
On Feb 27, 2005, at 1:23 AM, John Loughney wrote:
Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a
contract for what the working group will work on / develop. When a
working group wants to adopt a new draft, they need to have permission
from the AD and may even need to revise
te: 2005/02/27 Sun AM 05:18:57 EET
> To: kw2578 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
>
> > Graham,
> >
> > You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF,
On Feb 27, 2005, at 12:22 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
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
f
> > 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 suppos
> Graham,
>
> You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF,
> they will, most likely, become an RFC.
I hope not. When a WG agrees to consider a draft it should not be taken
as an assurance that the draft will be published as an RFC. Too many
WGs work far beyond their cha
> 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 q
At 7:14 PM -0800 2/25/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote:
Ý a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
Ý encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
Ý owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name fo
Graham,
You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF, they
will, most likely, become an RFC. Individual drafts have no assurance, and most
do not.
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinf
Should there be provision in this naming scheme
for the merging of two individual drafts into
one wg draft ?
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:14:51 -0800
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote:
> > a) renaming of the roo
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote:
> a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
>
> encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
> owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other
> reasons);
> b) the revision n
Um, I'm maybe an innocent bystander here, but perhaps the following works?
a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other
reasons);
b) the revi
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 25 February 2005 07:38
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are (or that
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a
working
> ... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are
> (or that working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt
> a draft as a working group draft.
I actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are
adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors
OTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
.
It's just a name.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:03:32 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
> Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to allow them to
>
> be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF they are now a WG draft
> AND they've been previously published as an individual submission.
from the line of comme
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?
Hi Spencer,
On Thursday 24 February 2005 13:15, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Maybe we could improve the announcements to say what the
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 16:03 -0500 Tony Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to
allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF
they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published
as an individual submission.
But no
On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:55:20 PM +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
[...]
Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for
the life of the document, and that is the practice we have been
f
on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
[...]
> Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the
> life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in
> the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have
>
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 16:03 -0500 Tony Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to
> allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF
> they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published
> as an individual submiss
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to allow them to
be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF they are now a WG draft
AND they've been previously published as an individual submission.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
The notion that new
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 13:23 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> I agree with Spencer - a filename is just a filename, and
> shouldn't carry metadata. It should not be used as the way to
> decide what WG a document belongs to, and it _also_ should not
> be used t
On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:04:26 AM -0500 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as draft-dawkins-f
Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as draft-dawkins-foo-bar-00, as a
means of documenting an idea to see if a currently-operating WG
is intereste
Hi Spencer,
On Thursday 24 February 2005 13:15, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> Maybe we could improve the announcements to say what the WG (WGs?)
> are for a draft, and we could quit twisting in this self-inflicted
> wind?
But isn't it already the case? Quoting I-D announce:
"A New Internet-Draft is
t Alvestrand"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: MARID back from the grave?
What is particularly ironic is that these I-Ds began as individual
submissions and we were asked to bring them in, under Marid, just in
time
for the working gro
> What is particularly ironic is that these I-Ds began as individual
> submissions and we were asked to bring them in, under Marid, just in
time
> for the working group to be disbanded.
We have seen that situation before, for example when the NGTRANS working
group was disbanded. Some of the work
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:13:53 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> At this point, we get the deadline effect: a
>
> work that in reality is a revision has now to meet the "original
> submission" deadline. That's not very fair. In these conditions, there
> should be some kind of automatic exemption
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:17:46 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> This is an error.
Harald,
Please explain.
I've looked over the documentation for I-D naming and do not see this case
covered.
What is particularly ironic is that these I-Ds began as individual submissions
and we were asked
Dave,
the announcement of this as a WG item for AAA is an error.
It should not have been announced that way - it should have been announced
as an individual submission.
In the past, we have been inconsistent in whether or not we recommended
that updates done after the WG's closing should be rena
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:26:45 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> >
> > This draft is a work item of the Authentication, Authorization and
> > Accounting Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> > Title
This is an error.
--On mandag, februar 21, 2005 13:26:45 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 03:20:40PM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 103 lines which said:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Draf
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 03:20:40PM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 103 lines which said:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Authentication, Authorization and Accounting
> Workin
48 matches
Mail list logo
