[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Sander Steffann sander at steffann.nl
Sat Mar 16 15:32:42 CET 2013
Hi, > Both options could cause confusion since: > > * RIPE-PDP-APWG-2013-01 and RIPE-PDP-APWG-2013-03 could exist, but > perhaps RIPE-PDP-APWG-2013-02 not. I might spend useless time > looking for a document that never existed. > > * Both RIPE-PDP-APWG-2013-01 and RIPE-PDP-AAWG-2013-01 would exist. > It might be just me, but those strings confuse my brain. I would > prefer to stick with RIPE-PDP-2013-01. I see a benefit in showing the working group, but not so much in prepending RIPE-PDP- to the number. How about 2014-86-APWG for example? Or, if we want to prepend: RIPE-PDP-2014-86-APWG. At least put the WG name after the number. I agree that otherwise it seems to become part of the namespace. - Sander