Good point - we will expand to: 

    <author-name>-lsr-ospf-<draft-specific-name>      - OSPF Specific drafts 
pertaining to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
    <author-name>-lsr-ospfv2-<draft-specific-name>  - OSPFv2 only Specific 
drafts 
    <author-name>-lsr-ospfv3-<draft-specific-name>  - OSPFv3 only Specific 
drafts     
    <author-name>-lsr-isis-<draft-specific-name>        - IS-IS Specific drafts
    <author-name>-lsr-<draft-specific-name>               - Drafts covering 
both protocols.

I'd hope the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 specific drafts are few and far between but I 
can still see reasons to have both (e.g., OSPFv2 will never support multiple 
address familes). 

Thanks,
Acee    

On 4/6/18, 5:29 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Acee,
    
    What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics?
    We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or ospfv2, “ospfv3” is for 
ospfv3 only? 
    
    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

Reply via email to