This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Sat Mar 16 17:51:39 CET 2013
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 > >
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]