> 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. KeithReceived on Monday, 10 July 1995 16:22:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:31 UTC