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)" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-
> rfc7810bis-00.txt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM
>
> > Chris -
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
> > > 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) <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
