# On 'Internet Drafts'

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Leslie Daigle: "Roy's remarks"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Roy Fielding: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Reply: Roy Fielding: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: On 'Internet Drafts'

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Jul10.095905pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT

I think we have too many "draft-ietf-uri-*" Internet drafts. I don't
think I understood the rules. I'm still not sure I understand the
rules, but I think the general rule is:

> if it is the work of one or several individuals, it is
> "draft-yourname-*". If this is a document that is the work of the
> committee, and has been circulated on the list, and we have agreed
> that you are the editor of the document and you have agreed to make
> changes according to the consensus of the committee, then it becomes
> "draft-ietf-uri-*".

If we're intending to produce something as an RFC, then it needs to
appear in the 'milestones' of the charter. If we're not intending to
turn a document into an RFC (informational, standards track,
experimental) then it probably shouldn't be a working-group document.

Now an RFC:
* draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-03.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-relative-url-06.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-url-08.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-req-01.txt

deleted:
* draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urc-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urc-spec-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn2urc-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-yaurn-00.txt

On the way to becoming an RFC of the committee, I think.
(I think that we're working on these as a committee rather than as
individual contributions):

Some of these don't appear in the 'milestones' of the draft charter.

* draft-ietf-uri-urc-req-01.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urc-sgml-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urc-trivial-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-url-finger-02.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-02.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-02.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-syntax-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-res-descript-00.txt

URN schemes. I think we're intending to chose one or more of these and
then develop them in committee:

* draft-ietf-uri-urn-x-dns-2-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-handles-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-00.txt

I think that we're intending to work on these in committee, but I'm
not sure:

* draft-ietf-uri-ura-00.txt
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-resolution-01.txt

Other problem cases:
* draft-ietf-uri-urn-issues-00.txt
Should this be turned into a revision of RFC 1737 (URN requirements?)
Is this a WG document? Will we accept this as committee work?

* draft-ietf-uri-roy-urn-urc-00.txt
probably shouldn't be a working group I-D in its current form. I.e.,
the working group shouldn't be working on 'how Roy would
implement URNs'.

* draft-ietf-uri-urn-res-thoughts-00.txt
probably shouldn't be a working group I-D in its current form. I.e.,
the working group shouldn't be working on 'how the working
group will proceed'

- Next message: Leslie Daigle: "Roy's remarks"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Roy Fielding: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Reply: Roy Fielding: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"