Re: On 'Internet Drafts'

Keith Moore (
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:22:15 -0400

Message-Id: <>
From: Keith Moore <>
To: Larry Masinter <>
Subject: Re: On 'Internet Drafts' 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT."
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:22:15 -0400

> Other problem cases:
> * draft-ietf-uri-urn-issues-00.txt
>         Should this be turned into a revision of RFC 1737 (URN requirements?)
>         Is this a WG document? Will we accept this as committee work?

As for whether something should be ietf-uri-* or author-*, I haven't
seen any published guidelines.

I named the issues draft 'draft-ietf-uri-*' instead of 'draft-moore-*' 
because it was intended specifically to aid in this group's discussion.  
I named the "URNs considered harmful" draft using 'draft-ietf-uri-*'
for the same reason.  (though it didn't make it in before the deadline)

On the other hand, the Internet-Draft on SONAR isn't within the
purview of this group, so it's named draft-moore-sonar-00.txt,
even though it is probably of interest to many of the URI wg

An internet-draft document doesn't have to end up as a RFC.  I 
think it's worthwhile to issue position papers as internet-drafts 
just so that all of them will be in one place.  Before leaving
for ietf, I usually do an ftp to an internet-drafts repository,
and do 'get draft-ietf-uri-*' so that I'll have all of the drafts
for this group on my laptop.