I agree that it would be really great to have a unique naming mechanism for policy proposals across regions. I'd also like to suggest that somehow Global Policies have some consistent naming mechanism across regions, so that they stand out a bit and folks can follow the conversation across regions. Maybe instead of RIR- it could be NRO- Global Policies being the ones enacted across all RIR's and spell out the actions between RIR's and IANA. For example, "Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion" --Heather On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@richih.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list.
One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about.
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
Possible suggestions for prefixes include:
* ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal.
* ripe-proposal- Unique, but long.
* ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter.
* ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things.
* RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it.
I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue.
Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification.
Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard