[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Alex Le Heux aleheux at kobo.com
Sat Mar 16 16:20:31 CET 2013
On 2013-03-16 15:32 , "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: >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. I think that overloading the name in such a way is only useful if both 2014-86-APWG and 2014-86-NCCSERVICES are possible. If the serial number of a proposal is unique across the different working groups, I don't see a need to include the WG in the name. Otherwise we should also consider including things like the name of the proposer, current stage of the PDP it is in, version, etc, etc :) Alex