+1 Regards, Jeff
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
