[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Richard Hartmann richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Sat Mar 16 17:54:35 CET 2013
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: > I see a benefit in showing the working group, but not so much in prepending RIPE-PDP- to the number. The prefix makes it easy to find the proposal without context. You don't need to know that 2014-86 is a RIPE policy document if you see a reference to it somewhere. You will know and a simple search without context other than the document's name will lead you to the correct place. > 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. Appending makes sense, actually. It shows what WG the PDP is in, yet it allows one single sequence to be counted up without arguments about spanning namespaces. Richard