I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally: <author-name>-lsr-ospf-<draft-specific-name> - OSPF Specific drafts <author-name>-lsr-isis-<draft-specific-name> - IS-IS Specific drafts <author-name>-lsr-<draft-specific-name> - Drafts covering both protocols.
Anyone strongly disagree? Thanks, Acee On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: Tom - Thanx for the support. It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title. My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: t.petch <ie...@btconnect.com> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps > <cho...@chopps.org> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM > > > Chris - > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM > > > > > > I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in > addition to '-lsr-') > > > is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same > solution. > > > We have an example of this actually: > > > > > > draft-ietf-xxxx-segment-routing-msd-09 > > > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 > > > > > > Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a > single > > > document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if > there's > > > some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need > the > > > protocol identifier to disambiguate. > > > > > > In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding > an extra "- > > > isis-". > > [Les:] RFC 7810 is xxxx specific. > > There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC > 7471). > > > > My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the > document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. > The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes > an RFC) should make that clear. > > > > I agree. > > From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in the > other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I > filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF in the > title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. > > Tom Petch > > > Les > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes: > > > > > > > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback > from the > > > WG. > > > > > > > > Combining xxxx/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument > there. > > > > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr