[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RAI] I-D's of former Sipping/Sip WG's

At 11:10 PM 7/17/2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
well ... there's nothing magic about the names of individual drafts, so continuing to use "sipping" would confuse a few people, but everything would just work.
"draft-ietf" draft names (working group drafts) ARE magic (with automatic verification of 00 versions, etc), but that's not your situation. 

well, then let's take this to a real example, with SIP Location Conveyance.

This was a SIP WG item, with the last being rev-13.
This doc moved directly to the SIPCORE WG, as SIPCORE Location Conveyance, and appeared to the casual observer as if this was the very first WG version in any WG.
Thus providing an example of how the -00 through -13 versions in SIP are now not linked to the SIPCORE versions -00 and -01.
BTW - the same thing happened when this moved from being a SIPPING WG item into the SIP WG (i.e., all past WG versions lost their links to the previous WG).
I agree with Hadriel - it would be nice to maintain continuity through the life of an ID that has been accepted by a WG, then moved to a new WG based upon IETF process.
If that link can't be done, or its too much of a hassle, that's ok, but it would be nice to know that's the case. 

James
spencer, who wishes SIP and SIPPING were still open because some tools stopped working when they were closed :-( 

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan York" <dyork at voxeo.com>
To: "Hadriel Kaplan" <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>
Cc: <rai at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RAI] I-D's of former Sipping/Sip WG's



Hadriel,
It's a good question. (I'm in the same situation with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info )
Or do we just continue to use "sipping" even though that WG is no longer there? 

Dan

On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:58 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:


Howdy,
I have a question with the mechanics of the closing of the SIPPING/ SIP WG's and mailing lists, with regards to Individual Drafts (I- D's). Some of us have I-D's we submitted to the previous WG's before the transition, which we'd like to update. For example a fictitious I-D like draft-smith-spipping-good-idea-05. If Mr. Smith updates them to the appropriate new WG's using the new WG names and new number space (.e.g, draft-smith-dispatch-good-idea-00), won't he lose the automatic links in the tools HTML view of the previous drafts?
That linking was a rather nice feature, both because it allowed one to create a fixed HTTP URL which one could give others which would auto-update to the latest rev, and because it allowed one to view diffs and such easily. So now Mr. Smith would have to change the URL he'd been giving folks for some time, and it would lose the history.
Is there a way to avoid this? (and no, I'm not asking to port all I- D's from the closed groups)
If this is a major pain in the #$%*&, like it requires tools changes, then forget it. Just more wondering if something already exists which lets me^H^H Mr.Smith submit a revved draft without the break. 

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai


--
Dan York, Director of Conversations
Voxeo Corporation   http://www.voxeo.com  dyork at voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859    Skype: danyork

Join the Voxeo conversation:
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo  http://twitter.com/danyork
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/voxeo








_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai


_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai