- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:22:15 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
> 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 members. 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. Keith
Received on Monday, 10 July 1995 16:22:44 UTC