[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"

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.

- Sander