virtual interim numbering

[cindymorgan]

Description

Subject: virtual interim numbering From: "Michael Richardson" mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca To: support@ietf.org Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:03:46 -0400

For those WGs that have approximately monthly virtual interim meetings, the numbering of the meetings as YYYY-WG-XX can be confusing as XX!=Month number. But, it sure sometimes looks like that, especially if one makes a series of meetings for the year.

I want to suggest that XX be changed in some way. More digits, letters, roman numerals, ... I don't care. Just not two digits.

-- Michael Richardson mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[mcr]

@mcr asked for this.

[rjsparks]

Hi Michael -

Such a change would require either splitting the schema for the filenames at a point in time (which brings surprising future technical debt) or renaming (and redirecting accesses to) the ~3600 of these we already have.

[mcr]

Are you saying that the name: "interim-2024-cellar-07" is always generated from other data and never stored? interim-2024-cellar-AA would still be better.

[rjsparks]

Are you saying that the name: "interim-2024-cellar-07" is always generated from other data and never stored?

No. Not sure how you are reading that from what I said.

Those are meeting names. They are the names stored in the Meeting objects. They are also currently the name of a directory in which the meeting materials are stored. They show up in URLs that have been on the Internet for years.

I hear your concern that someone may misinterpret them as months. A new greenfield solution might name them a different way such as you propose. But we've been using them this way for many years already, and have a large legacy base of them to deal with. That's the point of my comment above - changing the way the names are made now would not come at a small cost.

[mcr]

Robert Sparks @.***> wrote:

Are you saying that the name: "interim-2024-cellar-07" is always generated from other data and never stored?

No. Not sure how you are reading that from what I said.

If the name is generated once, I would think it was generated in one place, and then placed into a column of a table, and then used. So this is where I'm confused as to why making a change "now" would create the technical debt that you mention.

> I hear your concern that someone may misinterpret them as months. A new
> greenfield solution might name them a different way such as you
> propose. But we've been using them this way for many years already, and
> have a large legacy base of them to deal with. That's the point of my
> comment above - changing the way the names are made now would not come
> at a small cost.

let's close this issue

[rjsparks]

Ok - we can close this, but lets talk about it at 120 if you're there?