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
> just had an RFC published from an I-D named as an individual submission,
> and the work item we're currently spending most of our cycles on is
> something we inherited from CAT which still has a draft-cat-* filename.
> Ironically, the only confusion I'm aware of is in the part of Henrik's
> excellent WG status pages, which don't recognize that these documents
> belong to us (I understand he's working on a way to fix that).
Fixed as of today for active drafts. Unfortunately, this is based on
the information in 1id-index.txt, which only gives the draft -> WG
association for active drafts. Currently I don't have any good source
of draft -> WG associations for published, replaced or expired drafts.
One consequence of this is that the draft-ietf-cat-* document you refer
to is visible on the krb-wg draft status page now, but the published
individual submission is not.
(I haven't given up on rectifying this, too, but it isn't on the top of
the list currently.)
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
