16 Mar
2013
16 Mar
'13
5:51 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 03:20:31PM +0000, Alex Le Heux wrote:
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 :)
Or put the metadata in a block at the start, like it is done in RFCs? cheers, Sascha Luck
Alex