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: lsr@ietf.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

Reply via email to