18 Mar
2013
18 Mar
'13
10:23 a.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.
I find the proposal to be very good, and agree with Alex that no WG should be included, if the serial number is unique anyway.
Otherwise we should also consider including things like the name of the proposer, current stage of the PDP it is in, version, etc, etc :)
Don't forget shoe size. :) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0