Re: On 'Internet Drafts'
Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:22:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199507102022.QAA00501@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: On 'Internet Drafts'
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT."
<95Jul10.095905pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>
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
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