RE: FW: RFC bandwith, packet size and latency

["Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com>]

OK, let me ask it the other way - is there any working group that DOESN'T rename drafts when they're taken on as working group deliverables?

This is being left up to WG chair preference - if there's a widespread expectation that you can recognize working group deliverables by name, we should probably stop telling people that you can't tell by the name (true advice, but not helpful if it leads to confusion).

Of course, if everyone is already doing this, no confusion results - it's just that I've been telling people "no need to rename", trying to be nice to the I-D keepers!

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: Wgchairs Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: RFC bandwith, packet size and latency
> 
> 
> I'm a very strong proponent of the naming convention.
> 
> Speaking as a member of the IETF at large:
> It's the main criterion I use to decide whether to read a draft
> that's in a peripheral area of interest for me. During the weeks
> before an IETF, it's a life-saver.
> 
> Speaking as a WG chair:
> It's a useful management tool and a very effective filter for
> off-charter or non-consensual darfts.
> 
> Henning's statistics are fascinating, by the way.
> 
>    Brian
> >