From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 3 19:57:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25136; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 19:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C3NyD-00049c-0r; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:59:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C3NvB-0002nh-L1; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:56:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C3NJ7-0003at-Km for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:17:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23304 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 19:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C3NLo-0003U8-0i for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:20:13 -0400 Received: by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6E6AF37E9B; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 01:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A74837E48 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 01:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB6F37E42 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 01:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C3NIU-00087l-00 for ; Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:16:46 +0200 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 01:16:46 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040904011646.55405d34@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:56:45 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Test message X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please ignore... _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 10 19:47:21 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20500; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5vB7-0004zS-Ro; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:51:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5uy5-0005HW-IB; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5uuu-00048K-QV for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:34:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19966 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.105]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5uz4-0004oA-QS for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:39:15 -0400 Received: by av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 90EFF380F3; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805793808F; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE363800A; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C5uuI-0003za-8J; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:18 +0200 Message-ID: <414239F8.4020900@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:16 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Software tools for IETF -- suggestions? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (This is a copy of a posting made to the ietf@ietf.org mailing list - apologies if you receive multiple copies. /Henrik) IETFers, Do you have ideas for software tools that would make your IETF work easier? Do you have feedback about current IETF automation efforts? As part of the overall effort to improve IETF operations and structure, a Tools team has been chartered to develop requirements for additional and revised electronic tools to aid in the IETF operations. The charter of the Tools team (found at the IETF Tools web site, http://tools.ietf.org/) focuses initially on tools to improve the interface between IETF administration and the broader community; but will also look at tools to aid in the operation of individual working groups and the tasks of standards development. The Tools team is soliciting new tool suggestions and general comments, to be refined into a series of tool specifications. Tool specifications will then be used to implement or adopt software for IETF. The first item on Tools team list is the automation of draft submission to allow for quick and painless validation and posting of Internet-Drafts. The first document describing the new draft submission tool is available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt What should we work on next? Please visit the list of possible future tools and send us additions as well as priority preferences: http://tools.ietf.org/wiki/ToolSuggestions Please send all Tools-related feedback to tools-discuss@ietf.org, a newly formed mailing list; do this also if you add information to the wiki pages. Subscription instructions: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss -------- The members of the tools team are: * Alex Rousskov * Bill Fenner * Larry Masinter * Stanislav Shalunov * Henrik Levkowetz (chair) Schedule: The group will initially focus on additional tools for use in the interface between the IETF administration and the broader IETF community. The first draft of a set of requirements for an Internet-Drafts Submission Tool has been posted, and feedback is welcome. Other administrative tools are expected to be specified over the next six months. We will put together a list and priority schedule within that time frame. The Tools team may also conduct polls within the community for input on priorities, requirements, and feedback on currently deployed tools. After the initial focus on administrative tools, the group will turn its attention to tools of use for aiding working groups, authors and other parts of the IETF community. -------- Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 08:18:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22117; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6prU-0006ZY-7Q; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:23:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6pjk-0001VI-E1; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:15:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6peO-0000mU-RG; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:09:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21349; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6pj4-0006Oc-RM; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:14:32 -0400 Received: by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 1DE6737FA1; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:09:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E11C37E94; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:09:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EAD37E50; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6pdO-0004nF-8V; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:38 +0200 Message-ID: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:37 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the current mail submission through the secretariat as primary submission mode. We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the requirements, and would very much like your input on this. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your feedback should be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in order to be considered. Thanks, Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 09:24:17 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28288; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6qtK-0008A6-Pv; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:29:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6qez-0002uc-DD; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:14:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6qci-0002EW-MI; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:12:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27108; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.113]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6qhO-0007rL-7L; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:16:52 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id ACA483800D; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:11:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D4837E6E; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:11:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F65137E81; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:11:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6qVw-00050U-Jh; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:05:00 +0200 Message-ID: <41459AFC.7060105@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:05:00 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D submission tool draft References: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I forgot to say: Discussion of the draft should happen on the tools-discuss list, to keep the noise level down - subscribe at the following URL: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss Henrik Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi, > > The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool > to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the > current mail submission through the secretariat as primary > submission mode. > > We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the > requirements, and would very much like your input on this. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt > > > We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your feedback should > be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in > order to be considered. > > > Thanks, > > Henrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 09:29:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28770; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6qyC-0008Ie-7b; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:34:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6qff-0002zl-IY; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:15:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6pqj-0002K2-QK for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:22:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22347 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dallas.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.197.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6pvO-0006dO-1x for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:27:17 -0400 Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by dallas.jhuapl.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #40039) id <0I3Z00F01BO6O2@dallas.jhuapl.edu> for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhuapl.edu (pilot.jhuapl.edu [128.244.197.23]) by dallas.jhuapl.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #40039) with ESMTP id <0I3Z00FB2BO1AT@dallas.jhuapl.edu> for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ([128.244.124.185]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:20:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:20:56 -0400 From: Brian Haberman To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-id: <5D43B4F6-057F-11D9-9917-000D93330CAA@innovationslab.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Extending I-D tracker for WG chair use X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1871044814==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 --===============1871044814== Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-806739846; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" --Apple-Mail-1-806739846 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I would like to see the I-D tracker extended so that chairs can use it to track the state of drafts while they are still in the WG. This would simplify the management aspect of last calls, reviews, and submissions. It would also allow WG members to hold the chairs accountable for draft advancement, much in the same way that chairs use the current I-D tracker to pester ADs. :) Thanks, Brian --Apple-Mail-1-806739846 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGJDCCAt0w ggJGoAMCAQICAwz21DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDQwOTAxMTcxOTM4WhcNMDUwOTAxMTcxOTM4WjBKMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMScwJQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhhicmlhbkBpbm5vdmF0aW9u c2xhYi5uZXQwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDRogfqvQwSubSspmgfho1w Br2IRBf5DI+pvLyiFcMM7KTRomseAAznLq+OjixIzT08u0opCIB91C2fohXwqf05+NVmd3/IIrOh gQoQeFrwZdRwkmA1p6/+ivWwwyiIBBVjyIx5cdULoGi3Nl0hanW99zEHWMR7cr9YRfkhrYwyrLwF 2dUlanpDcoC+PJfimFv7Sp5Ymut3GMuvc4hrzmUBs3GhZVUbxrknxBb9C0ApLa++79wQtcrzK7Nr HkGl63vTkfCaR2HqPE53GT1NvPSQyRUMbVBmx5xzuHUlQAY/fMDOLv45qFa9Xb8XfP1Xb+chYzHX xPx4pqVTzZUnfi3RAgMBAAGjNTAzMCMGA1UdEQQcMBqBGGJyaWFuQGlubm92YXRpb25zbGFiLm5l dDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBABHGCDHcruXemZ3lBjGb0E+TXfwILkNu UykBjSlywXfghEVSEO/cZ/0tMjrqIn1GF3GZeKecvx/aIFawl2pSUejjnLUrEE6Ro5AQs5kyZI3b ma3GPa+TMEOeXBr8Wp+HwkMAk+McfRfGNGTDIBwF+8LnQmMCPlvTYEfuUZ93AAxCMIIDPzCCAqig AwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4g Q2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYG A1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBl cnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3 dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAj BgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJz b25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxV c1X7TrnKmVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuF Wqo/cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDag NIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYD VR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAg k3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowgT2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbq NOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAucwggLjAgEBMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMM9tQwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAVMwGAYJKoZIhvcN AQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDQwOTEzMTIyMDU3WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0B CQQxFgQU4jnZOenKImeQM/xOuG1H3dGdDpoweAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMWswaTBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJa QTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3Rl IFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECAwz21DB6BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFroGkwYjEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNV BAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMM9tQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQAEggEANoU8/jZ1zUzSCmsGKnDyUx9GG6Pfha3+vzeUuMNioHbJid0UWCpOs+B7a+06F8AR+ZwF UD2vwWjX6kmjcmfb99QAu8TrLQy8TjVX1SbhQhv/E0kex6g0J3kziE/AhWXylxn+GoMDWV415LU4 grnuGRwdLXv4GiZCPE8P5bRc5sHocxInwzv0xZ63Mi2DEnwWz1kBCfn0hjnUCMsmJPxh2CPnoCBB njmsYRiqdlU6/mqmKZjFPo5cjUW+CmAkeK04ojD+Inmh4qmR+dOl7xdBXMy0apE3eQnoQtMWMBN2 0scteiXngfB0+MDXoHxpP8OBNsn2ctA6BANA3X0ZcLjGjwAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-1-806739846-- --===============1871044814== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============1871044814==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 10:51:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05692; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6sFD-0001QP-N4; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:55:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6s41-00078d-FH; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:44:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6s0T-0006c9-Ud for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:40:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05177 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.109]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6s5B-0001Fn-0x for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:45:30 -0400 Received: by av3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id A210D3800B; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0F937E45; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778B37E77; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6rzw-0005Jc-2M; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4145B143.9010601@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:03 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scott bradner References: <20040913123845.314BD8C98B@newdev.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040913123845.314BD8C98B@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Scott, scott bradner wrote: > this looks pretty good but a few comments > > this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID text > and trying to parse and check it, not an unreasonable approach but was > the alternative of having the submitter fill in some or all of the meta > data on a submission form (authors names & contacts, filename, > boilerplate options etc) considered? Hmm, it's maybe not clear enough, but the idea is to parse the ID for information, and use it to fill in a meta information page, which will let the submitter correct or change it - but hopefully also will minimise the work associated with doing a submission. > I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the > confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included > a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent > disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the > submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say > that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate - this is a > proposal that has come up a few times over the last few years, if we > create a tool for people to use to submit IDs it would seem to be a good > time to implement such a process Adding such a click-through page after the meta-information confirmation page should be easy (provided we have agreement on that, of course). > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be > able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm > fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work So in your view, the alternative of holding on to the submission and e.g. sending a mail (including a cookie) to the chair, which he can return to indicate approval, would be a necessary part of this? One consideration in doing this as pre-approval was to avoid wg draft acceptance being author-driven rather than wg/chair driven - but I suspect that doing this as a three step process (pre-approval to be permitted to submit -- author submission -- chair final approval by return mail) would be too cumbersome... Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 11:06:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06924; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6sTy-0001m9-SY; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:11:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6sIJ-0000xq-Su; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6s9y-00083G-Rj for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:50:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05668 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6sEg-0001PX-9g for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:55:19 -0400 Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5F95F8CF66; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:49:54 -0400 (EDT) To: henrik@levkowetz.com, sob@harvard.edu In-Reply-To: <4145B143.9010601@levkowetz.com> Message-Id: <20040913144954.5F95F8CF66@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:49:54 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe > > this looks pretty good but a few comments > > > > this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID text > > and trying to parse and check it, not an unreasonable approach but was > > the alternative of having the submitter fill in some or all of the meta > > data on a submission form (authors names & contacts, filename, > > boilerplate options etc) considered? > > Hmm, it's maybe not clear enough, but the idea is to parse the ID for > information, and use it to fill in a meta information page, which will > let the submitter correct or change it - but hopefully also will minimise > the work associated with doing a submission. sounds good - if the submitter changes something does the ID text get changed to match? (if not there is a big chance for bad data somewhere) > > I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the > > confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included > > a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent > > disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the > > submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say > > that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate - this is a > > proposal that has come up a few times over the last few years, if we > > create a tool for people to use to submit IDs it would seem to be a good > > time to implement such a process > > Adding such a click-through page after the meta-information confirmation > page should be easy (provided we have agreement on that, of course). tnx > > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be > > able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm > > fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think > > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work > > So in your view, the alternative of holding on to the submission and > e.g. sending a mail (including a cookie) to the chair, which he can > return to indicate approval, would be a necessary part of this? yes (but also support what you proposed if the WG chair wants to go that way) > One consideration in doing this as pre-approval was to avoid wg draft > acceptance being author-driven rather than wg/chair driven - the acceptance of a 00 WG draft must be chair (not author) driven under current rules and those rules were put in for a reason (no such issue with non-00 versions) > but I > suspect that doing this as a three step process (pre-approval to be > permitted to submit -- author submission -- chair final approval by > return mail) would be too cumbersome... that sounds like an unneeded extra step Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 11:41:01 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09943; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:41:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6t1g-0002eM-1M; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:45:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6sp5-00008T-2T; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:32:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6scn-0004D4-9Z for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:20:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08499 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6shS-000299-Oa for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:25:06 -0400 Received: by av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4147137F7C; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3329337E5B; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217F638031; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6scA-0005WI-Dh; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4145BA86.2080709@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:34 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scott bradner References: <20040913144954.5F95F8CF66@newdev.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040913144954.5F95F8CF66@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit scott bradner wrote: ... >>Hmm, it's maybe not clear enough, but the idea is to parse the ID for >>information, and use it to fill in a meta information page, which will >>let the submitter correct or change it - but hopefully also will minimise >>the work associated with doing a submission. > > > sounds good - if the submitter changes something does the ID text get > changed to match? (if not there is a big chance for bad data somewhere) Good question! Mmm, if there are changes which cannot be matched against the draft, maybe it would be better to reject the submission - just offer the author the chance to accept or break off the process. The fact that the meta-information extraction has produced information which doesn't match the author's idea of correct information would indicate that trying to change the draft text might really mess it up... ... >>So in your view, the alternative of holding on to the submission and >>e.g. sending a mail (including a cookie) to the chair, which he can >>return to indicate approval, would be a necessary part of this? > > > yes (but also support what you proposed if the WG chair wants to go that way) Ok. > >>One consideration in doing this as pre-approval was to avoid wg draft >>acceptance being author-driven rather than wg/chair driven - > > > the acceptance of a 00 WG draft must be chair (not author) driven under > current rules and those rules were put in for a reason (no such issue > with non-00 versions) Yes. I was given to understand that there had been some WG's where the chairs had been a bit too lax in this respect, and changing to a pre-approval model might help alleviate this ... Personally I like the post-approval model more, speaking as a chair. We had a bit of discussion of this particular point within the team :-) > > >>but I >>suspect that doing this as a three step process (pre-approval to be >>permitted to submit -- author submission -- chair final approval by >>return mail) would be too cumbersome... > > > that sounds like an unneeded extra step Right. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 11:44:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10110; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6t4e-0002hs-CN; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:49:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6spK-0000Iw-43; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:33:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6shX-00053v-Ql for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:25:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09083 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6smF-0002KF-IR for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:30:00 -0400 Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5FF398D1A2; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:24:35 -0400 (EDT) To: henrik@levkowetz.com, sob@harvard.edu In-Reply-To: <4145BA86.2080709@levkowetz.com> Message-Id: <20040913152435.5FF398D1A2@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f > Good question! Mmm, if there are changes which cannot be matched > against the draft, maybe it would be better to reject the submission - > just offer the author the chance to accept or break off the process. I think that may be teh safest way to proceed > The fact that the meta-information extraction has produced information > which doesn't match the author's idea of correct information would > indicate that trying to change the draft text might really mess it up... :-) big time Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 15:50:22 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01186; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6wv0-0008Q9-AD; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:55:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6wfQ-00075Z-JT; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:39:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6tvr-0007Sr-IN for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:43:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15403 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6u0Z-0004HS-Pd for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:48:53 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2004 09:43:38 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com [171.71.163.15]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i8DGh4Lr019702; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.107.171.190] ([128.107.171.190]) by mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id ASE41079; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:36:03 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.0.0.040405 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:36:06 -0700 From: Cullen Jennings To: Henrik Levkowetz , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:39:12 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like a requirement that all drafts that are submitted are close enough to correctly formatted that they can reliably be printed without weird pagination issues. I know this is a vague requirement but I imagine folks know what I am getting at. Also, an option of submitting the xml2rfc style xml seems like a very nice way to generate meta information given the number of people that use that tool for drafts. Cullen PS. The archive for this list at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/maillist.html seem empty On 9/13/04 5:08 AM, "Henrik Levkowetz" wrote: > Hi, > > The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool > to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the > current mail submission through the secretariat as primary > submission mode. > > We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the > requirements, and would very much like your input on this. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt > > We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your > feedback should be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in > order to be considered. > > > Thanks, > > Henrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 16:01:06 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02033; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6x5Q-0000MR-9R; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:06:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6wxX-00070D-8O; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:57:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6wfU-00077T-3z for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:39:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00559 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.109]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6wkE-0008Ea-3V for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:44:11 -0400 Received: by av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 3150B37EDA; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:38:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F6437E5B; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:38:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108AA38013; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:38:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6wew-00088B-U2; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:38:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4145F740.1020408@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:38:40 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cullen Jennings References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cullen Jennings wrote: > I would like a requirement that all drafts that are submitted are close > enough to correctly formatted that they can reliably be printed without > weird pagination issues. I know this is a vague requirement but I imagine > folks know what I am getting at. Mmm, I'd also want this, but I don't think this is quite within the scope of what the tools-team can require. I'll suggest we capture this somehow in the draft, and see what we can do to maybe get it into the I-D checlist. There is still the issue of specifying this so it can be enforced - even if _I_ know what you're getting at :-) that isn't something that can be built into a tool, as such ,:-) > Also, an option of submitting the xml2rfc style xml seems like a very nice > way to generate meta information given the number of people that use that > tool for drafts. Yes, we intend to at least encourage people to do this. There are some issues though, mainly having to do with external files used for references - currently it is not a given that all xml files which work on the author's system can be run through xml2rfc somewhere else without patching. > PS. The archive for this list at > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/maillist.html > seem empty > Yes. I've sent a bug report on this. The ftp arhcive at ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/tools-discuss/current seems to be updated (with some delay) though. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 18:08:50 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18446; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6z53-0005XB-CL; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:13:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6ynL-0004Fp-Rx; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:55:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6xvk-0002gI-LT for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10738 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.219.209.75] (helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6y0U-00034d-EQ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:05:03 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.5) with ESMTP id i8DKxX7M015879 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:59:33 -0400 Received: from [135.210.17.61] (unknown[135.210.17.61](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20040913210012gw1002f1rse> (Authid: tony); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:00:13 +0000 Message-ID: <41460A2F.3000300@att.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:59:27 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:55:30 -0400 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cullen Jennings wrote: > I would like a requirement that all drafts that are submitted are close > enough to correctly formatted that they can reliably be printed without > weird pagination issues. I know this is a vague requirement but I imagine > folks know what I am getting at. Not for -00 drafts. As long as they're strictly ascii, I personally could care less if the pagination of -00 drafts comes out strange; at least their content is still readable. However, I WOULD like to see them checked for non-ascii characters. Strange characters often cause problems for printing and their readability. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 19:42:04 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25477; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C70XH-0007Sy-NO; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:47:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C706T-0007Us-Ie; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:19:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C701e-0006Sf-Oe for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:14:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23862 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cyteen.hactrn.net ([66.92.66.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C706Q-0006yM-Oz for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:19:20 -0400 Received: from thrintun.hactrn.net (thrintun.hactrn.net [IPv6:2002:425c:4242:0:250:daff:fe82:1c39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "thrintun.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374DB9D for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thrintun.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by thrintun.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A2B42B5 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:13:49 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20040913231349.74A2B42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Subject: [Tools-discuss] possible tool suggestion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 A tool in which some WG chairs have expressed interest: http://www.hactrn.net/hacks/mh-list-traffic/mh-list-traffic It's a traffic summary generator, which I find useful in tracking certain forms of pathological mailing list behavior. I originally wrote this as a quick hack to monitor the mailing list activity of a somewhat contentious WG of which I was (at the time) co-chair. Several other WG chairs expressed interest in using this tool to manage discussions their own WG mailing lists, so I currently have a variant of this running as a weekly cron robot. Sample of what the output looks like available in the IPv6 and MULTI6 archives. The script itself is still a hack, one could (easily) do better. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 22:56:21 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08456; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73ZJ-0002aP-SY; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:01:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73PZ-0002vw-Ge; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:51:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73Ne-0002W7-VF; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:49:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08013; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:49:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73SS-0002Qi-QS; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:54:18 -0400 Received: by av5-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 574D837F32; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av5-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4933C37E43; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EAC37E46; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C73N6-0002GZ-00; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:44 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:43 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: "James Kempf" Message-Id: <20040914044843.5f881c18@chardonnay> In-Reply-To: <028701c499e4$bd6f2eb0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> References: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> <028701c499e4$bd6f2eb0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi James, On Monday, 13 Sep 2004, James Kempf wrote: > There seems to be a built-in assumption here that someone will write a new > tool for this. > > Most conferences and journals nowadays use an automated submission system, > I've heard there are 4 different systems used by various conferences. One of > them I've used extensively is EDAS (http://edas.info/doc/) which was > developed by Henning Schulzrinne. I'd be curious to know why something like > that won't work for IETF? I imagine it might save IETF lots of time (and > potentially money if the intent was to contract out the production of the > tool), even if IETF had to change its procedures slightly. Has there been > any attempt to compare the requirements in this draft to existing systems to > see if IETF might get by with something that is already out there? Excellent point. There is no inherent value in rolling our own. If we can adapt an already existing system at a lower cost, it would most probably be better. We'll look at EDAS, and try to hunt down and look at the other three out there, too. (If you happen to have names or URLs for any of those, could you please send them to tools-discuss@ietf.org?) Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 23:05:35 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09047; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73iG-0002li-4v; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:10:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73YG-0004zz-AP; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:00:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6ziR-0001wX-CA; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:54:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22279; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6znC-0006Wy-8N; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:59:28 -0400 Message-ID: <028701c499e4$bd6f2eb0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Henrik Levkowetz" , , References: <41458DC5.80001@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:55:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:00:15 -0400 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrik, There seems to be a built-in assumption here that someone will write a new tool for this. Most conferences and journals nowadays use an automated submission system, I've heard there are 4 different systems used by various conferences. One of them I've used extensively is EDAS (http://edas.info/doc/) which was developed by Henning Schulzrinne. I'd be curious to know why something like that won't work for IETF? I imagine it might save IETF lots of time (and potentially money if the intent was to contract out the production of the tool), even if IETF had to change its procedures slightly. Has there been any attempt to compare the requirements in this draft to existing systems to see if IETF might get by with something that is already out there? jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henrik Levkowetz" To: ; Cc: Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 5:08 AM Subject: I-D submission tool draft > Hi, > > The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool > to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the > current mail submission through the secretariat as primary > submission mode. > > We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the > requirements, and would very much like your input on this. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt > > We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your > feedback should be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in > order to be considered. > > > Thanks, > > Henrik > > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 23:07:32 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09241; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73k9-0002nx-MX; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:12:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73ZR-00055r-PF; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:01:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73T6-0003qN-1u for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:54:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08362 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73Xt-0002XI-W8 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:59:55 -0400 Received: by av3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 00D6A37E58; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:54:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23EA37E4A for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:54:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33F938004 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:54:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C73PV-0002H3-00 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:51:13 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:51:13 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040914045113.012ba388@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding this to the tools-discuss list, too. /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:05:50 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: scott bradner , ietf@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org Cc: Subject: re: I-D submission tool draft On Monday, September 13, 2004 08:38:45 -0400 scott bradner wrote: > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be > able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm > fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the chair are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. If I'm not available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal. It should _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting than people are. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 23:11:10 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09444; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73nf-0002rP-PQ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:16:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73h4-0006rV-FO; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:09:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C73gm-0006jy-7s for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:09:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09353 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.109]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C73la-0002or-A9 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:14:03 -0400 Received: by av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 9DBEE37EC2; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903F237E4A; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807E138003; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C73gE-0002MS-00; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:30 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:30 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Tony Hansen Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft Message-Id: <20040914050830.2f772143@chardonnay> In-Reply-To: <41460A2F.3000300@att.com> References: <41460A2F.3000300@att.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Tony, On Monday, 13 Sep 2004, Tony Hansen wrote: > > I would like a requirement that all drafts that are submitted are close > > enough to correctly formatted that they can reliably be printed without > > weird pagination issues. I know this is a vague requirement but I imagine > > folks know what I am getting at. > > Not for -00 drafts. As long as they're strictly ascii, I personally > could care less if the pagination of -00 drafts comes out strange; at > least their content is still readable. However, I WOULD like to see them > checked for non-ascii characters. Strange characters often cause > problems for printing and their readability. ... and this requirement is part of the ID-checklist, so here we're closer to being able to ask that the submission conform. Now, the ID-checklist is really only placing requirements on I-Ds submitted for RFC publication , and we can't willy-nilly just apply it to any submission, but we can perhaps propose that a subset of it be applied by the submission tool, with needed exceptions be handled by a fallback mechanism. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 13 23:51:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11532; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C74Qs-0003Th-9g; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:56:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C74Ku-0004E8-6N; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:50:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C74Fl-0003GV-JY for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:45:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11318 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.114]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C74Ka-0003OH-04 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:50:13 -0400 Received: by av5-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 0960E37E91; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:44:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av5-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF5537E46; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:44:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC51E38003; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:44:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C74FD-0002aT-00; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:44:39 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:44:39 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Rob Austein Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] possible tool suggestion Message-Id: <20040914054439.21ae28e7@chardonnay> In-Reply-To: <20040913231349.74A2B42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> References: <20040913231349.74A2B42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Rob, On Monday, 13 Sep 2004, Rob Austein wrote: > A tool in which some WG chairs have expressed interest: > > http://www.hactrn.net/hacks/mh-list-traffic/mh-list-traffic > > It's a traffic summary generator, which I find useful in tracking > certain forms of pathological mailing list behavior. > > I originally wrote this as a quick hack to monitor the mailing list > activity of a somewhat contentious WG of which I was (at the time) > co-chair. Several other WG chairs expressed interest in using this > tool to manage discussions their own WG mailing lists, so I currently > have a variant of this running as a weekly cron robot. Sample of what > the output looks like available in the IPv6 and MULTI6 archives. > > The script itself is still a hack, one could (easily) do better. Nifty. Since I don't normally read my mail with MH, I patched it to be able to take the directory information as a command line parameter (mh style) - otherwise it still defaults to the current folder: --- /usr/local/bin/mh-list-traffic.orig 2004-09-14 05:25:46.000000000 +0200 +++ /usr/local/bin/mh-list-traffic 2004-09-14 05:32:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ : ${since=-7} -pick -after "$since" | +pick -after "$since" $1 | xargs scan -format '%(size) %(mbox{from})@%(host{from})' | tr A-Z a-z | awk ' I'll add a link to the script from the tools.ietf.org tool page for WG tools. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 03:25:59 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11093; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C77mI-0007PQ-EO; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:31:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C77dw-0005TY-1a; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:22:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C77Wr-0004Dv-D2; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:15:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09962; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C77bh-00078K-0F; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:20:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CE061BD7; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:14:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31990-08; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (145.80-202-211.nextgentel.com [80.202.211.145]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA5761BB9; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:14:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:14:30 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: john.loughney@nokia.com, pekkas@netcore.fi, jhutz@cmu.edu Message-ID: <3663331DCF4053FC3EB3842C@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892CE@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892CE@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [re-adding tools-discuss] --On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 08:56:00 +0300 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > Pekka, > >> > I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the >> > chair are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. >> > If I'm not available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a >> > train returning from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I >> > can deal. It should _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers >> > are much better at waiting than people are. >> >> I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all. It just >> changes the practical process a little bit, that's all. > > My biggest concern about this is co-ordinating this around IETF meetings. > For example, I usually take vacations from mid-June to mid-July so > sometimes I am on vacation during the draft cut-off dates. Trying to get > everything co-ordinated sufficiently would probably cause something to > get missed, which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings > to discuss active work items. John, I think you clearly point out that if something (like approval of an -00 draft) is likely to be hung up on a single person, there needs to be override procedures in place - that the WG chair can sublet the power to the WG secretary, that the AD can approve when the WG chair isn't there; the details can be worked out - but we should NOT let ourselves be locked down to one specific person having to be chained to his keyboard. Harald _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 04:43:55 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16001; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C78zj-0000Vg-0G; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C78md-0007gv-SV; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:35:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C78e9-0006aD-Td for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:26:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14823 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.114]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C78j1-0000AL-Ll for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:31:44 -0400 Received: by av7-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B8B8838082; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av7-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB2637FBE; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7543637E42; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C78dd-0003a8-00; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:09 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:07 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, Jari Arkko Message-Id: <20040914102607.243d2adc@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding this to tools-discuss, too. /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:51:08 +0200 From: "Jari Arkko (JO/LMF)" To: "'john.loughney@nokia.com'" , pekkas@netcore.fi Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft I like automation. I think it would be great if the tools handled nits checking, file posting, IPR/copyright confirmation and all that, probably getting the draft to the web site in minutes. Compare this to the delay we have now, which is days -- not bad compared to past times but it would still speed up the process, let the secretariat do other, more useful things. And it would probably increase quality too, less accidents and more formal checking during submission. I think the tools should read things like author information from the draft. People would hate typing all that in again. But it may be fine for the tool to ask if the information it has read is correct, as a confirmation. Or get a confirmation that the user has read "Note well". As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, we do not have to follow the current manual process, we can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. A couple of detailed comments to the draft below: - I don't think we want the cut & paste option. Upload is sufficient. - I'm not sure the correct metadata & go to manual process option is useful. Is there some reason why we can't require either that (a) the draft be corrected so that the metadata can actually be read, or that (b) the user fills in the metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation anyway? I'd like to keep the e-mail based submission process as a backup, but I see no reason to add a new manual mode to the tool. - "two versions are submitted with a suspiciously small gap?" I think this is a non-problem. Fortunately, some people may read your draft immediately, and notice a problem that you want to correct. Or, unfortunately, you yourself notice something that went wrong. I think we need to allow new versions even with a short time gap. - I'd rather see the tool as one "submit page" rather than a separate "upload" and "check pages". You submit and then you get back the information that you want to verify, and then you either press OK or resubmit/correct. - Security considerations and submitter authentication. Perhaps we should think about e-mail address verification, just to confirm that the web user is actually able to receive e-mail at the address he claims to have. The other question is if we should allow anyone to submit. For new drafts, the answer is yes, I think. For old drafts, I would propose that any of the authors of the old revision can post a new one. Then we have many cases of the-old-authors-are-no-longer- interested-and-someone-else-took-over; those can be handled by the manual e-mail based approach just fine. --Jari _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 05:25:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19270; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C79dQ-0001HA-5E; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:30:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79NN-0005Km-4Y; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:13:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79E0-0003nN-JD; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:03:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17708; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from albatross.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.49]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C79Is-0000qk-HB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:47 -0400 Received: from esealmw142.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.119]) by albatross.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i8E93gWR022921; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:42 +0200 (MEST) Received: from esealnt610.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.120]) by esealmw142.al.sw.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:42 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.64] (research-1fd0e1.ki.sw.ericsson.se [147.214.34.64]) by esealnt610.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id SY7N5ANB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4146B3C9.30806@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:05 +0200 X-Sybari-Trust: 84c260a8 74898554 7b52d827 00000139 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: sv, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john.loughney@nokia.com References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 09:03:42.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB56FC70:01C49A39] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, pekkas@netcore.fi, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi John, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > I agree and would like to add a point - for WG submissions, > then the WG chair(s) should also be notified. If we do this, > we could tie-in an explicit/implicit approval process by the > WG chair. I'd prefer implicit, meaning that if I get notified > of a new WG submission, I would have to take a step to deny > it - otherwise it will be implicitly approved. I am not agreeing with you on the implicit approval process. At least in my WG (AVT) it is quite common that people are somewhat confused on the process and do not sufficiently understand the distinction between WG documents and individual submission. In addition we are allowed by the AD as WG chairs to make the decision to approve RTP payload formats as WG items. Thus I like to have the necessary control that no drafts gets available as WG items before our explicit approval. I would also like to point out that with automation the posting to the draft repository and sending of announcements could happen directly thus giving no time for the WG chair to stop the draft before it becomes available. I think it is more appropriate to have a delay in the initial submission of a WG document then to have wrongly published versions floating around. In comparison I think I have stopped one initial WG version submission and approved 4 or 5 so far this year. So it is not a massive workload. If there is also a process where the WG chair can pre-approve WG drafts, it can work smoothly even before meetings or when the chair is on vacation. It then becomes a matter of the author to communicate with the WG chair if it really necessary to get it out ASAP. I hope such an interface would use a cut-off deadline based the submission, rather then the WG chairs approval. Although the chair should also have an deadline. I think it is a great idea that the draft submission can be improved to be more reliable and quicker. That way I would get less questions from my WG authors asking when they can expect their drafts to become available. Another feature that I would like to see that does not seem to be in the draft is to specify which WG that will get announcement of the draft. I think there should be a easy way of specifying a small number of WG mailing lists as being recipients of announcement of a individual draft. Cheers Magnus Westerlund AVT Chair Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 05:53:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21442; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7A4x-0001rW-JZ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:58:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79zd-0004SI-Sq; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C78WR-0005W0-Ex; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:18:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14198; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:18:41 -0400 (EDT) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C78bI-0008Sy-0T; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:23:45 -0400 Received: from esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (esdks001.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.120]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8E8Ic109280; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:38 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:24 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i8E8IOgD015899; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:24 +0300 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com 00qqsvMV; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:23 EEST Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.77]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8E8IKY10476; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:20 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebe011.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.50]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:07 +0300 Received: from esebe056.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.51]) by esebe011.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:07 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:18:07 +0300 Message-ID: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: I-D submission tool draft Thread-Index: AcSaL8lm2fVaveiUS/+PRP/ajavFVgAAzL3Q To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 08:18:07.0658 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D8A70A0:01C49A33] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:56 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jari, > The other question is if we should allow anyone to > submit. For new drafts, the answer is yes, I think. > For old drafts, I would propose that any of the > authors of the old revision can post a new one. > Then we have many cases of the-old-authors-are-no-longer- > interested-and-someone-else-took-over; those can be > handled by the manual e-mail based approach just fine. I agree and would like to add a point - for WG submissions, then the WG chair(s) should also be notified. If we do this, we could tie-in an explicit/implicit approval process by the WG chair. I'd prefer implicit, meaning that if I get notified of a new WG submission, I would have to take a step to deny it - otherwise it will be implicitly approved. John=09 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 05:54:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21550; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7A65-0001so-DB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:59:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79ze-0004SN-1d; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79gv-00016D-58; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:33:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19933; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C79lc-0001Se-99; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:38:39 -0400 Received: from esealmw141.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.120]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i8E9XOAh007801; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:33:24 +0200 Received: from esealnt612.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.118]) by esealmw141.al.sw.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:33:23 +0200 Received: by esealnt612.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:33:22 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" To: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:33:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 09:33:23.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[E156EF30:01C49A3D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:56 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 I share Magnus concerns about an implicit approval process for new WG drafts, and I do not think it is a big issue for us chairs to approve new WG drafts. It is a matter of communication between author(s) and chair(s), and if we can have a pre-approval mechanism this should not at all be an issue. /L-E > I am not agreeing with you on the implicit approval process. > At least in my WG (AVT) it is quite common that people are > somewhat confused on the process and do not sufficiently > understand the distinction between WG documents and > individual submission. In addition we are allowed by the > AD as WG chairs to make the decision to approve RTP payload > formats as WG items. Thus I like to have the necessary > control that no drafts gets available as WG items before our > explicit approval. > > If there is also a process where the WG chair can pre-approve > WG drafts, it can work smoothly even before meetings or when > the chair is on vacation. It then becomes a matter of the > author to communicate with the WG chair if it really > necessary to get it out ASAP. I hope such an interface would > use a cut-off deadline based the submission, rather then the > WG chairs approval. Although the chair should also have an > deadline. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 05:57:01 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21910; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7A8T-0001xK-PD; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:02:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7A04-0004cm-5x; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:53:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C79zO-0004R7-IT; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21425; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av4-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7A4H-0001qJ-4j; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:57:45 -0400 Received: by av4-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id ACAF837E8C; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av4-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3C637E43; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF9038018; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C79ys-0006jd-86; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4146BF49.1080701@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:09 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft References: <20040914102607.243d2adc@chardonnay> In-Reply-To: <20040914102607.243d2adc@chardonnay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, Jari Arkko X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jari, Thanks for the feedback! Some notes inline... Jari Arkko wrote: > > I like automation. I think it would be great if the > tools handled nits checking, file posting, IPR/copyright > confirmation and all that, probably getting the draft > to the web site in minutes. Compare this to the delay > we have now, which is days -- not bad compared to past > times but it would still speed up the process, let the > secretariat do other, more useful things. And it would > probably increase quality too, less accidents and more > formal checking during submission. > > I think the tools should read things like author information > from the draft. People would hate typing all that in again. > But it may be fine for the tool to ask if the information > it has read is correct, as a confirmation. Or get a > confirmation that the user has read "Note well". Agreed, on both counts. > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in the team. I like it :-) > A couple of detailed comments to the draft below: > > - I don't think we want the cut & paste option. Upload > is sufficient. Noted > - I'm not sure the correct metadata & go to manual process > option is useful. Is there some reason why we can't require > either that (a) the draft be corrected so that the metadata > can actually be read, or that (b) the user fills in the > metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation > anyway? After Scott's comments, I think that I favour (a) - that seems to not lead into ratholes, and it's simple > I'd like to keep the e-mail based submission process > as a backup, but I see no reason to add a new manual > mode to the tool. Noted > - "two versions are submitted with a suspiciously small gap?" > I think this is a non-problem. Fortunately, some people > may read your draft immediately, and notice a problem that > you want to correct. Or, unfortunately, you yourself notice > something that went wrong. I think we need to allow new versions > even with a short time gap. Ok > - I'd rather see the tool as one "submit page" rather than > a separate "upload" and "check pages". You submit and then > you get back the information that you want to verify, and > then you either press OK or resubmit/correct. Ok. Would you suggest that the IPR/copyright confirmation be on a 3rd page, or combined with the verify page? > - Security considerations and submitter authentication. > Perhaps we should think about e-mail address verification, > just to confirm that the web user is actually able to > receive e-mail at the address he claims to have. Yes, I think that is right. > The other question is if we should allow anyone to > submit. For new drafts, the answer is yes, I think. > For old drafts, I would propose that any of the > authors of the old revision can post a new one. This has been the intention, yes. > Then we have many cases of the-old-authors-are-no-longer- > interested-and-someone-else-took-over; those can be > handled by the manual e-mail based approach just fine. Right. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 06:06:18 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22458; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7AHT-00027A-0S; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:11:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7AC2-0006Ne-GY; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:05:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7A6q-0005lT-6m for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:00:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22088 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7ABi-0001zm-Bh for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:05:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8E9xpa23896; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:51 +0300 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 43317e64100dd4d87214c51822b582d1 Cc: "'john.loughney@nokia.com'" , "Jari Arkko \(JO/LMF\)" Subject: [Tools-discuss] RE: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b8f3559805f7873076212d6f63ee803e A few comments of my own... On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Jari Arkko (JO/LMF) wrote: > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. I might want to consider keeping at least some kind of sign-off. I've seen about two cases where people I had never even heard of had submitted draft-ietf-v6ops-xxx documents, and they had gone through (to WG charter pages etc) even without asking WG chairs (for some odd reason). They were just IETF newcomers, and thought that was the way to name their first individual submission, so they sent that to the internet-drafts@... > A couple of detailed comments to the draft below: > > - I don't think we want the cut & paste option. Upload > is sufficient. Agree. > - I'm not sure the correct metadata & go to manual process > option is useful. Is there some reason why we can't require > either that (a) the draft be corrected so that the metadata > can actually be read, or that (b) the user fills in the > metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation > anyway? I don't even see (b) as strictly required. The users won't care to fix their stuff if they can just opt to ignore the form requirements. To me, we only need an on/off behaviour: if the ID passes the checks, it's published. If it doesn't pass, the system shows why not, and it's immediately deleted from the staging area. The user makes appropriate changes to accommodate the required fixes, and submits again, [iterate as needed]. Simple and efficient. Of course, a manual "backup" will be needed, but it could be delayed e.g., 3-4 days on purpose to make using automation more lucrative.. :-) For what it's worth, I don't see why we even need a web tool. Why not just send the draft over email? You can do the same kind of challenge-response with that as well if needed. I can deal with http, but email seems reasonably simple approach at least for the more experienced.. > - "two versions are submitted with a suspiciously small gap?" > I think this is a non-problem. Fortunately, some people > may read your draft immediately, and notice a problem that > you want to correct. Or, unfortunately, you yourself notice > something that went wrong. I think we need to allow new versions > even with a short time gap. I think we could have a check that only two versions of the same ID can be posted in the same day. That allows for first submittal, and immediately fixing some typos or brown paper bag issues. The concern here is probably when some stupid script goes awry and creates an infinite loop of submission .. :-) > - I'd rather see the tool as one "submit page" rather than > a separate "upload" and "check pages". You submit and then > you get back the information that you want to verify, and > then you either press OK or resubmit/correct. Agree, as said above. This could be greatly simplified. > - Security considerations and submitter authentication. > Perhaps we should think about e-mail address verification, > just to confirm that the web user is actually able to > receive e-mail at the address he claims to have. That's possible, see more comments below on who could submit drafts. .... 8.2 Extraction WG: IETF working group identifier. WG value is empty for individual drafts or non-IETF drafts. For example, "tools" in draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13. .. currently, there is no reliable way to get this information, because some WGs have adopted to tell the secretariat that a draft of the name like draft-surname-wg-foo-05.txt is actually a WG document (that's a variable in the IETF systems) instead of properly renaming them. See e.g., OSPF WG for these. So this information cannot be extracted from the drafts without a policy change (I'd encourage such a change though!) ==> I'd also like to point out something that's not always done but could be useful for history keeping. When a -00 draft is published, it's sometimes signified to the secretariat that it obsoletes the previous draft (which is then moved to the expired pile). That would also facilitate keeping track of those changes.. I don't think xml2rfc for example can be used to convey this information, but if we move towards more automation, this could be useful.. .... 8.3.1 Absolute requirements 2. A draft must be submitted by an authorized submitter. [[XXX13: move this lower, we do not know the submitter at this stage --Alex]][[XXX14: Don't forget the co-author, changed editor, and drafts being posted anonymously (secretariat needs to know who submitter is, but name doesn't necessarily appear on draft) --Harald]] and: Which author is the submitter? [[XXX30: with the exception for Secretariat manual submission? No. Secretariat submits on behalf of one of the authors. --Alex]][[XXX31: are there any situations when a draft is submitted by somebody other than author and not on explicit authors behalf? What happens to IPR "by submitting this draft I ..." statement then? --Alex]]; ==> there are many cases where non-author is submitting a new version, e.g., when WG chair or someone designated by the WG chair steps up and does final editing rounds of the document. I've certainly done that dozens of times myself. 4. Current draft state must allow new revisions to be posted. [[XXX15: document IESG review states when new revisions are allowed. Secretariat and Harald opinions seem to differ here. Secretariat: No revisions are allowed in any state except for "I-D exists", "AD watching", or an explicit IESG request for a new revision. Harald: no revisions once submitted for publication. Need further clarification --Alex]]. Both Harald and secretariat are incorrect at least in practice. New ID's can be submitted at any point in time right now. The above categories wouldn't even work if the IESG evaluation changes the state of the draft to "revised ID needed" substate (can happen at any stage). But my point here is that it seems wrong to restrict this in any way prior to the draft getting into "RFC editor's queue" phase. This is because the ADs and the secretariat are in charge of changing the state -- they could be days or weeks absent (not being able to change the state to such one where new revisions would be OK), disallowing one from addressing issues. This seems like trying to solve a process knowledge problem (the I-D author should not submit new versions) using a technical means, which seems shortsighted. At most, a warning should be issued. .... 8.3.2 Desireable features Violating any of the following requirements would NOT prevent a draft to be automatically posted except for draft revision designated for "publication requested" state (i.e., IETF Last Call and IESG review). [[XXX18: should we be that strict with last revisions? --Alex]] and: Does the author request this submission to be published? (i.e., forwarded to IESG or RFC Editor for review and publication as an RFC or BCP) [[XXX32: clarify that for-publication submissions may be subjected to more mandatory checks than other drafts. --Alex]]. ==> I don't understand this. How would the tool know that a draft is intended for "publication requested" state. There is no way to know that, so this seems out of scope here. [[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent? --Alex]] ==> definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, of whom we'd never get an ack or nack. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 06:18:10 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23767; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7ASx-0002LW-82; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:23:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7AKR-0008VH-Om; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:14:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7AIp-0007l0-3C; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:12:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23216; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7ANg-0002Fp-Qu; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:17:50 -0400 Received: from esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (esdks002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.121]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EACb110184; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:37 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:28 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i8EACSnd028134; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:28 +0300 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com 00uqu78B; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:26 EEST Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh004.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.84]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EACHY01058; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:17 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebe013.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.52]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:17 +0300 Received: from esebe056.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.51]) by esebe013.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:14 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:10 +0300 Message-ID: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E8@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Thread-Index: AcSaQZ0af73xL9ghT7KY4aTHnJoo8wAAZSDA To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 10:12:14.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E8F5880:01C49A43] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jari & Henrik, > > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. >=20 > !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in > the team. I like it :-) This would meet my concerns as well. I prefer the optimistic security mode. John _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 06:36:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25704; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7AkZ-0002hp-TO; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:41:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Ad0-0003AD-6B; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:33:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7AXY-0002LV-6U for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:28:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24845 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7AcP-0002Xi-RY for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8EARJX24975; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:27:19 +0300 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:27:19 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft In-Reply-To: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E8@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: jari.arkko@piuha.net, henrik@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > > > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > > > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > > > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > > > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > > > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > > > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > > > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > > > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. > > > > !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in > > the team. I like it :-) > > This would meet my concerns as well. I prefer the optimistic security > mode. Does this include an explicit email notification to the chairs? If so, it could be acceptable even if I find it slightly undesirable. What happens to such inappropriately published WG drafts? Eliminated completely, vanishing without any trace? Note that this information is reflected in very many places: WG charter page, WG mailing list, etc. -- does a withdrawal message get sent to the WG mailing list as well? So, I think this optimistic approach will cause significant hassle especially by those that don't really understand the process, i.e., the difference of draft-surname-foo-00 and draft-ietf-wg-foo-00. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 07:01:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27249; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7B8i-000399-Vl; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:06:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7B2v-0007WB-Pe; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:00:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7AwR-0006gV-CY for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:53:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26963 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:53:41 -0400 (EDT) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7B1K-00031w-JK for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:58:47 -0400 Received: from esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (esdks004.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.159]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EAra113166; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:53:36 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:38 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i8EAqcFp028863; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:38 +0300 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com 00SRYbX3; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:37 EEST Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.82]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EAYYY26469; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:34 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.30]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:30 +0300 Received: from esebe056.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.51]) by esebe001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:30 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:29 +0300 Message-ID: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892EA@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Thread-Index: AcSaRbuCo94SXFRzR9iSgETCbiXldgAACwdA To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 10:34:30.0661 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AFD9B50:01C49A46] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: jari.arkko@piuha.net, henrik@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pekka, Reformatting your message slightly: > So, I think this optimistic approach will cause significant hassle > especially by those that don't really understand the process, i.e., > the difference of draft-surname-foo-00 and draft-ietf-wg-foo-00. Is this currently a problem & if so, how wide-scale? I have not seen this happen before, even though I am chairing 2 working groups=20 presently. One would assume if we made automatic submission possible via a web page, text could be added saying: Draft names of the following format draft-ietf-wg-foo-00.txt MUST=20 have prior approval of WG chairs and ADs. > Does this include an explicit email notification to the chairs? If=20 > so, it could be acceptable even if I find it slightly undesirable. I would hope so. > What happens to such inappropriately published WG drafts? Eliminated > completely, vanishing without any trace? Note that this information > is reflected in very many places: WG charter page, WG mailing list, > etc. -- does a withdrawal message get sent to the WG mailing list as > well? How have we handled this in the past? Have our past ways of handling it=20 cause problems? John _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 07:04:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27393; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7BBd-0003BP-8H; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:09:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7B5i-0008AY-E8; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:03:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7B3t-0007j6-RE for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:01:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27267 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7B8l-00038y-Qy for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:06:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8EB0nl25825; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:00:49 +0300 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:00:49 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft In-Reply-To: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892EA@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Cc: jari.arkko@piuha.net, henrik@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > So, I think this optimistic approach will cause significant hassle > > especially by those that don't really understand the process, i.e., > > the difference of draft-surname-foo-00 and draft-ietf-wg-foo-00. > > Is this currently a problem & if so, how wide-scale? I have not seen > this happen before, even though I am chairing 2 working groups > presently. Not sure of how wide-scale, but this has come across me. And can we actually even know how wide scale this is? The IETF secretariat probably would know best how many WG -00 submissions turn out which aren't approved.. > One would assume if we made automatic submission possible via a web > page, text could be added saying: > > Draft names of the following format draft-ietf-wg-foo-00.txt MUST > have prior approval of WG chairs and ADs. That would be one way to address the problem, at least to the large part. > > What happens to such inappropriately published WG drafts? Eliminated > > completely, vanishing without any trace? Note that this information > > is reflected in very many places: WG charter page, WG mailing list, > > etc. -- does a withdrawal message get sent to the WG mailing list as > > well? > > How have we handled this in the past? Have our past ways of handling it > cause problems? Just one example, draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt, WG chairs weren't asked (for some reasons), and it went on the WG charter pages and was announced on the WG list, the document stuck there for a week or so, then I noticed that something was amiss and complained to the secretariat, who removed it from the WG page. draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt still exists for some reason. draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as a result and has now expired. And this was in the manual system. Now we're talking about making it automatic. This has me worried. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 09:36:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09023; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7DZ8-0006Na-D7; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:41:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7DK7-0004JR-RD; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7A9M-0005yK-Em; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:03:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22181; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p2.piuha.net ([131.160.192.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7AEE-00022U-9k; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:08:03 -0400 Received: from piuha.net (p2.piuha.net [131.160.192.2]) by p2.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77DA8986C; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:55 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4146C194.2040502@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:01:56 +0300 From: Jari Arkko Organization: None User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft References: en-us, en <4146BF49.1080701@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4146BF49.1080701@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:19 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: jari.arkko@piuha.net List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>- I'd rather see the tool as one "submit page" rather than >> a separate "upload" and "check pages". You submit and then >> you get back the information that you want to verify, and >> then you either press OK or resubmit/correct. > > Ok. Would you suggest that the IPR/copyright confirmation be > on a 3rd page, or combined with the verify page? Either way is fine with me, but perhaps one verified issue per page would be more readable. First page: verify that the metadata is right. Second page: ack that you have comply with the copyright etc rules. --Jari _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 09:36:54 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09055; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7DZI-0006Nr-0l; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:42:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7DK8-0004JW-0T; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7APH-0001MF-Fb; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:19:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23934; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:19:25 -0400 (EDT) From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7AU9-0002NI-3p; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:24:30 -0400 Received: from esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (esdks003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.158]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EAJL121316; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:19:21 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:19:01 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i8EAJ1Vj014520; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:19:01 +0300 Received: from mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.97) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com 005ZlARi; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:18:59 EEST Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.82]) by mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i8EAImS26748; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:18:48 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.86]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:16:43 +0300 Received: from esebe014.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.53]) by esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:16:44 +0300 Received: from esebe056.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.51]) by esebe014.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:16:43 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:16:43 +0300 Message-ID: <5816828233DEFA41807A6CFDFDF2343C08B5CF@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft Thread-Index: AcSaQZyEbJFyUTGKSOCQ8Hv4EsGpIwAAcCqg To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 10:16:43.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEA47C60:01C49A43] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:19 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > -----Original Message----- > From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of ext Henrik Levkowetz > Sent: 14.September.2004 12:52 > To: tools-discuss@ietf.org > Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org; Jari Arkko > Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft >=20 >=20 > Hi Jari, >=20 > Thanks for the feedback! Some notes inline... >=20 > Jari Arkko wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > I like automation. I think it would be great if the > > tools handled nits checking, file posting, IPR/copyright > > confirmation and all that, probably getting the draft > > to the web site in minutes. Compare this to the delay > > we have now, which is days -- not bad compared to past > > times but it would still speed up the process, let the > > secretariat do other, more useful things. And it would > > probably increase quality too, less accidents and more > > formal checking during submission. > >=20 > > I think the tools should read things like author information > > from the draft. People would hate typing all that in again. > > But it may be fine for the tool to ask if the information > > it has read is correct, as a confirmation. Or get a > > confirmation that the user has read "Note well". >=20 > Agreed, on both counts. >=20 > > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. >=20 > !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in > the team. I like it :-) >=20 This is ok until the same draft is resubmitted a few months later with = changes, but using the same name (since the first one was not approved, = the name is not reserved). This results in 2 drafts with the same = version number and different contents that the public has had access to. = A draft should be approved before made public. Regards, Hisham _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 09:37:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09079; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7DZT-0006O2-UZ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:42:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7DK8-0004Jb-5n; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7CpU-0004la-Jt; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:54:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04704; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.219.209.75] (helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7CuN-0005CC-KD; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:59:45 -0400 Received: from attrh0i.attrh.att.com ([135.37.94.54]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.5) with ESMTP id i8ECmb86008049; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:54:06 -0400 Received: from custsla.mt.att.com (135.21.14.109) by attrh0i.attrh.att.com (7.1.006) id 413B3959001717DF; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:54:06 -0400 Received: from acmortonw.att.com (acmortonw.mt.att.com [135.16.251.33]) by custsla.mt.att.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id i8ECs5Z11321; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040914084846.02e75aa0@custsla.mt.att.com> X-Sender: acm@custsla.mt.att.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:52:23 -0400 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: Al Morton Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft In-Reply-To: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E8@esebe056.ntc.nokia. com> References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E8@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:26:19 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 At 06:12 AM 09/14/2004, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > > > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > > > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > > > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. > > > > !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in > > the team. I like it :-) > >This would meet my concerns as well. I prefer the optimistic security >mode. Agree, remove with a re-name option (just had one like this at IETF-60). Al _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 10:05:48 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11553; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7E1G-00072B-HB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:10:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7DjZ-00013F-4t; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:52:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Dhk-0000Ml-Du for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:50:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10358 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Dme-0006j5-6Z for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:55:49 -0400 Received: from northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (northrelay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.206]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EDo8aV645252; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:50:08 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i8EDpFvO084318; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:51:21 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8EGnSuh000804; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:49:29 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i8EGnRCJ000800; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:49:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200409141649.i8EGnRCJ000800@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft In-Reply-To: Message from pekkas@netcore.fi of "Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:00:49 +0300." Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:49:27 -0700 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Pekka Savola writes: > draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as > draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt, WG chairs weren't asked (for > some reasons), and it went on the WG charter pages and was announced > on the WG list, the document stuck there for a week or so, then I > noticed that something was amiss and complained to the secretariat, > who removed it from the WG page. > draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt still exists for some reason. > draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as a result and has > now expired. Note: stuff happens, and cruft remains lying around when it shouldn't. I see it, and we all probably do if we look. When you see something that isn't right, send a note to internet-drafts (maybe cc'ing your AD if appropriate) stating how you'd like things fixed. For the draft that still exists, did anyone ask that it be deleted? Personally, I think this is one of the chair's jobs, to fix things related to their WGs that don't seem right, as things _do_ happen... Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 12:45:54 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24144; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GWF-00022V-Ej; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:51:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GAe-00062f-Ek; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:28:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Frx-0000nT-1n; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:09:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21132; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Fwq-00010Y-Ch; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:14:31 -0400 Message-ID: <007c01c49a75$4fdbea00$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Magnus Westerlund" , References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> <4146B3C9.30806@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:10:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have no problem with having the WG chair approve submission of drafts. If one chair is on vacation, then the co-chair can approve, and if there is only one chair, then the AD can approve, since the time span is limited. What I would like to see, however, is that individual drafts which are submitted to a WG prior to becoming WG drafts are somehow indexed and accessable under the WG name, especially if they are to be discussed at a meeting. I usually download a bunch of individual drafts that I am intending to read prior to IETF meetings. Unless the WG chair puts hot links into the agenda (and not all WG chairs do), now what I must do is go to the Internet Drafts web page and do a full text search for each draft, a timeconsuming and tedious process. Some may object to this because it lends a certain cachet to individual drafts that they should not have, since they have not been officially accepted by the WG. I tend to think that this is unlikely to be a problem, since they will fall off the page at 6 months when they expire, and nobody is likely to mistake an individual draft for a WG draft, since the file names are different. They can also be treated differently in the way they are linked into the WG page, for example, the user could have to click through to a page where individual drafts are on, instead of having the draft immediately accessable from the WG page, as the WG drafts are. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Westerlund" To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:03 AM Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft > Hi John, > > john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > I agree and would like to add a point - for WG submissions, > > then the WG chair(s) should also be notified. If we do this, > > we could tie-in an explicit/implicit approval process by the > > WG chair. I'd prefer implicit, meaning that if I get notified > > of a new WG submission, I would have to take a step to deny > > it - otherwise it will be implicitly approved. > > I am not agreeing with you on the implicit approval process. At least in > my WG (AVT) it is quite common that people are somewhat confused on the > process and do not sufficiently understand the distinction between WG > documents and individual submission. In addition we are allowed by the > AD as WG chairs to make the decision to approve RTP payload formats as > WG items. Thus I like to have the necessary control that no drafts gets > available as WG items before our explicit approval. > > I would also like to point out that with automation the posting to the > draft repository and sending of announcements could happen directly thus > giving no time for the WG chair to stop the draft before it becomes > available. I think it is more appropriate to have a delay in the initial > submission of a WG document then to have wrongly published versions > floating around. In comparison I think I have stopped one initial WG > version submission and approved 4 or 5 so far this year. So it is not a > massive workload. > > If there is also a process where the WG chair can pre-approve WG drafts, > it can work smoothly even before meetings or when the chair is on > vacation. It then becomes a matter of the author to communicate with the > WG chair if it really necessary to get it out ASAP. I hope such an > interface would use a cut-off deadline based the submission, rather then > the WG chairs approval. Although the chair should also have an deadline. > > I think it is a great idea that the draft submission can be improved to > be more reliable and quicker. That way I would get less questions from > my WG authors asking when they can expect their drafts to become available. > > Another feature that I would like to see that does not seem to be in the > draft is to specify which WG that will get announcement of the draft. I > think there should be a easy way of specifying a small number of WG > mailing lists as being recipients of announcement of a individual draft. > > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > AVT Chair > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:08:42 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25975; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:08:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GsK-0002W2-0t; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:13:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GbI-0004Wz-Q7; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:56:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GLt-0000KE-Rq for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:40:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23760 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GQp-0001rB-3j for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:45:28 -0400 Received: by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 3E130381A6; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CD937F77; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C8037E48; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7GLL-00030T-Qb; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:47 +0200 Message-ID: <41471ED4.8010006@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:48 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cullen Jennings References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cullen Jennings wrote: ... >>There is still the issue of specifying this so it can be enforced - even >>if _I_ know what you're getting at :-) that isn't something that can be >>built into a tool, as such ,:-) > > There is this great tool called idcheck that you might have heard of ;-) It > seems to do a good job of checking formatting - it could easily be run by a > web submission process. Things that pass it, all seem to print fine for me. > I don't know what it checks but I'm sure you know. (PS Thanks for the great > tool) You're welcome :-) (I did an overhaul of the boilerplate-matching code during the weekend, to make it recognise a family of not wellformed boilerplate, exactly to make it more potentially useful as a potential I-D submisson tool component.) If they print fine when passed by idnits, I suspect it may be as simple as the limits idnits enforces on line length and page length, which both are covered in ID-cheklist.html - this is good news. ... >>Yes, we intend to at least encourage people to do this. There are some >>issues though, mainly having to do with external files used for references >>- currently it is not a given that all xml files which work on the author's >>system can be run through xml2rfc somewhere else without patching. >> >> > > > yes, I like to use the xslt stuff because it is faster so I just don't > include external references in all my drafts. I just cut and pasted the xml > form the bib files into my draft. This ways it works for everyone. The ways > stuff is included is current a bit of a hack - perhaps we could figure out a > way to fix this problem. Yes, I think so... I'll post a note to Marshall, see what he says. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:19:13 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27148; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7H2T-0002na-EK; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:24:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Go9-00070Z-Es; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:09:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Eo8-0003ns-QU for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:01:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16472 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Et3-00082I-8c for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:06:30 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2004 08:01:34 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com [171.71.163.15]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i8EF0lsg018126; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (sjc-vpn2-1075.cisco.com [10.21.116.51]) by mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id ASF28274; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.0.0.040405 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:00:52 -0700 From: Cullen Jennings To: Henrik Levkowetz Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4145F740.1020408@levkowetz.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:09:32 -0400 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/13/04 12:38 PM, "Henrik Levkowetz" wrote: > Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> I would like a requirement that all drafts that are submitted are close >> enough to correctly formatted that they can reliably be printed without >> weird pagination issues. I know this is a vague requirement but I imagine >> folks know what I am getting at. > > Mmm, I'd also want this, but I don't think this is quite within the scope > of what the tools-team can require. I'll suggest we capture this somehow > in the draft, and see what we can do to maybe get it into the I-D checlist. > > There is still the issue of specifying this so it can be enforced - even > if _I_ know what you're getting at :-) that isn't something that can be > built into a tool, as such ,:-) > There is this great tool called idcheck that you might have heard of ;-) It seems to do a good job of checking formatting - it could easily be run by a web submission process. Things that pass it, all seem to print fine for me. I don't know what it checks but I'm sure you know. (PS Thanks for the great tool) >> Also, an option of submitting the xml2rfc style xml seems like a very nice >> way to generate meta information given the number of people that use that >> tool for drafts. > > Yes, we intend to at least encourage people to do this. There are some > issues though, mainly having to do with external files used for references > - currently it is not a given that all xml files which work on the author's > system can be run through xml2rfc somewhere else without patching. > > yes, I like to use the xslt stuff because it is faster so I just don't include external references in all my drafts. I just cut and pasted the xml form the bib files into my draft. This ways it works for everyone. The ways stuff is included is current a bit of a hack - perhaps we could figure out a way to fix this problem. >> PS. The archive for this list at >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/maillist.html >> seem empty >> > > Yes. I've sent a bug report on this. The ftp arhcive at > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/tools-discuss/current > seems to be updated (with some delay) though. > > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:20:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27261; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7H3K-0002p2-Ei; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:25:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GpI-0007Sp-38; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:10:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GcH-0004sd-0D; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:57:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25021; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GhC-0002IK-KO; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:23 -0400 Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2D7E3906C3; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:56:40 -0400 (EDT) To: henrik@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft In-Reply-To: <4146BF49.1080701@levkowetz.com> Message-Id: <20040914165640.2D7E3906C3@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:56:40 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 > > give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. > > !! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in > the team. I like it :-) this process has caused significant issues in teh past people can get quite burnt if they get a very public rebuke by having their ID removed - I do not think this is a good idea (plus the fact is that IDs never get removed from teh net - that ID will be there about forever with the wrong name) I think this is quite a bad idea Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:20:36 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27341; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7H3p-0002q3-Ug; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:25:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GqC-0007qD-Ra; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:11:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gf9-0005Ft-Uc for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:00:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25255 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Gk5-0002MT-VB for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:05:22 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EH0AwN040584; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:00:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EH09sO040583; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:00:09 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:00:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040914100213.Q34252@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Cc: scott bradner Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Hi, I am catching up on tools-discuss e-mail. It turns out that TOOLS members were not auto-subscribed to receive postings... scott bradner wrote: > this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID > text and trying to parse and check it, not an unreasonable approach > but was the alternative of having the submitter fill in some or all > of the meta data on a submission form (authors names & contacts, > filename, boilerplate options etc) considered? As Henrik already pointed out, both modes are supported. However, if the submitter manually enters or corrects any meta-data, the draft MUST be posted manually, via Secretariat. This way, Secretariat can check that manually entered meta-data matches the draft. The tool will tell Secretariat what has been changed or added, making Secretariat work easier and more reliable. I think it is a bad idea to let folks change meta-data and auto-post drafts that may not match the meta-data any more (more on that below). Auto-changing the draft to match manually-entered metadata does not seem practical to me for many reasons. After the initial discussion, would anybody prefer a different choice here? Jari Arkko wrote: > - I'm not sure the correct metadata & go to manual process > option is useful. Is there some reason why we can't require > either that (a) the draft be corrected so that the metadata > can actually be read, or that (b) the user fills in the > metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation > anyway? Option (a) is not always possible. We simply do not have the tools to _correctly_ extract metadata from any valid draft. Our tools can only handle draft formats they know and often rely on imprecise guesses. Since draft formatting requirements are very informal, we will not have perfect tools in the foreseeable future (if ever). Option (b) is likely to lead to many inconsistencies and even fraud. If the tool cannot extract meta-data from the draft, then it cannot check that corrected meta-data matches the draft. Let Secretariat handle these special cases. Please note that since manual posting takes longer, folks will be encouraged to use xml2rfc and other "common" formats to avoid manual processing. This is a good thing, I guess. scott bradner wrote: > I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the > confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included > a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent > disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the > submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say > that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate A part of the submission mechanism is a submitter verification step. For example, an e-mail can be sent to submitter asking him to confirm submission. That would be a good opportunity to confirm IPR consent. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:29:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27805; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HC7-0002yF-3H; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gvl-0000jp-58; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:17:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GhQ-0005ht-4J for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25363 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GmL-0002OA-Md for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:07:43 -0400 Received: by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 280DE3808E; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1838538024; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0819C38013; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7Ggr-0003GY-DZ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0200 Message-ID: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In the requirements for an I-D submission tool which the tools-team are currently looking at, we would like to provide the possibility to submit the xml source file for a draft, at the same time as the text file is sumbitted. However, there is one potential problem with this which I've run into - the use of for references which can't be found in the standard reference libraries, or the use of this PI to put together an xml file from fragments. If non-standard references or other include files are missing, the usefulness of having the xml file diminishes... (This happened with an xml file I'd submitted to the RFC editor, and I had to send in a new version with the references inline for the RFC editor to be able to use it.) I can think of some different ways of handling this. They might be combined, too. What I wonder is what your thoughts are on the different possibilities: 1) The submission tool tries to run xml2rfc on the file, and reports failure or success a) if failure, rejects the document, but accepts the text document b) if failure, rejects the whole submission c) does nothing, leaving a broken xml file in the archive 2) Use of the PI is deprecated in xml2rfc, and a warning issued. This should probably be combined with one of 1) above 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time will make 1) less and less needed 4) Some other resolution? Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:29:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27825; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HCE-0002yT-OR; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gvl-0000jy-Be; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:17:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gi0-0005jE-0W for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:03:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25378 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Gmw-0002OV-Od for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:08:18 -0400 Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4E8759070D; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:41 -0400 (EDT) To: rousskov@measurement-factory.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20040914100213.Q34252@measurement-factory.com> Message-Id: <20040914170241.4E8759070D@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:02:41 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: sob@harvard.edu Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad > I think it is a bad idea to let folks change meta-data and auto-post > drafts that may not match the meta-data any more (more on that below). > Auto-changing the draft to match manually-entered metadata does not > seem practical to me for many reasons. I'm in full agreement Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:29:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27847; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:29:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HCJ-0002yj-Vx; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gvn-0000kO-O8; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:17:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gir-0005so-7b for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25415 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Gnk-0002Pp-Hf for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:09:09 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EH3wwN040775; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EH3wIH040774; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:03:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040914100213.Q34252@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: scott bradner Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb scott bradner wrote: > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather > be able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first Can you clarify the point of reviewing the document first, keeping in mind that the Chair has no special control over the second and all other revisions of the draft? If I have a malicious intent, I will post a "placeholder" or "good" version first, get it approved, and then immediately post a "bad" version. If I have no malicious intent, I will correct any problems in the first version during subsequent postings. IMO (not shared by some TOOLS members), holding the 00 version hostage to Chair approval complicates the tool considerably. I still do not see much value in doing that. What value does the Chair review of the 00 version of the draft bring compared to simply authorizing draft _work_? I would have no problems understanding the argument for post-then-approve model if Chairs had to approve every posting, not just the 00 version. With current rules, it really seems to me that the Chair (WG, really) approves draft _work_ not any specific draft version, until the last call. I also cannot say whether discussion on this list indicates that there is consensus one way or another. And with folks suggesting no approvals at all (i.e., optimistic security model), things become really blurry... Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:29:46 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27876; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HCf-0002zC-4N; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7GxQ-0000vR-Up; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:19:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Gmf-0006b0-D8 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25867 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Grb-0002Uf-Vq for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:13:08 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EH7wwN040967; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:07:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EH7mSN040965; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:07:48 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:07:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040914102132.W34252@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: James Kempf Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d James Kempf wrote: > Most conferences and journals nowadays use an automated submission > system, I've heard there are 4 different systems used by various > conferences. One of them I've used extensively is EDAS > (http://edas.info/doc/) which was developed by Henning Schulzrinne. > I'd be curious to know why something like that won't work for IETF? In my experience with conference/journal review automation tools, they should not be adopted for IETF purposes. There are just too many differences in the flow of operations, in what gets checked, what passing the checks means, etc. Also, the conference/journal tools I have used and the ID Submission tool we are drafting are rather simple. I would be surprised if a lot of time can be saved by customizing an existing tool compared to writing a few scripts from scratch. We are talking about a few simple pages here. Most of the complexity is in validation and posting code that is beyond the scope of the ID submission draft and that cannot be adopted (existing IETF-specific tools aside) as it is specific to the IETF. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:39:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28590; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HMI-0003Bz-DT; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:44:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HBB-0003LP-Ck; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:33:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7H1d-0001Zg-H3 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:23:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27581 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7H6X-0002sP-BR for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:28:36 -0400 Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.150]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EHMoRS490476; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:22:50 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i8EHNpTr135498; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:24:02 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8EHN9AK006969; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:23:09 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i8EHN7KH006965; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:23:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200409141723.i8EHN7KH006965@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "James Kempf" In-Reply-To: Message from kempf@docomolabs-usa.com of "Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:10:08 PDT." <007c01c49a75$4fdbea00$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:23:07 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, Magnus Westerlund , tools-discuss@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 FWIW. > I usually download a bunch of individual > drafts that I am intending to read prior to IETF meetings. In this day and age, it's pretty simple to just mirror the entire ID directory. http://www.ietf.org/rsync-help.html A mere 140MB (today). > Unless the WG chair puts hot links into the agenda (and not all WG > chairs do), now what I must do is go to the Internet Drafts web page > and do a full text search for each draft, a timeconsuming and > tedious process. If you have the ID name in the email agenda on your laptop, and a copy of the entire ID directory, searching/finding is pretty straightforward. > What I would like to see, however, is that individual drafts which > are submitted to a WG prior to becoming WG drafts are somehow > indexed and accessable under the WG name, especially if they are to > be discussed at a meeting. What more is needed if you have the agenda and a mirror? Folk can (and do) also use the convention of draft--- to indicate what WG they think the document belongs to. Not sure that having more than this really helps much. Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:41:18 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28799; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HNq-0003EB-EC; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:46:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HBX-0003Oq-8p; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7H5P-00028i-JP; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:27:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27738; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HAL-0002wr-4J; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:32:30 -0400 Message-ID: <011501c49a80$356f1420$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Rousskov" , References: <20040914102132.W34252@measurement-factory.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:28:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Also, the conference/journal tools I have used and the ID Submission > tool we are drafting are rather simple. I would be surprised if a lot > of time can be saved by customizing an existing tool compared to > writing a few scripts from scratch. We are talking about a few simple > pages here. Most of the complexity is in validation and posting code > that is beyond the scope of the ID submission draft and that cannot be > adopted (existing IETF-specific tools aside) as it is specific to the > IETF. > This is exactly what I am a little concerned about. I'd rather not see a lot of effort put into "a few scripts from scratch". This suggests to me something hacked together with little concern about how it is actually used. I'd rather see a well designed tool with a good Web-based user interface that automates draft submission (point and click) with proper attention to workflow. It may in fact be the case that the existing conference submission tools don't satisfy IETF's needs, but I believe due diligence needs to be done to make sure that is the case. Also, it may also be possible that one of the existing tools might be easily modified if IETF's requirements are not all that far off from what it provides. Henning Schulzrinne is a long time participant in IETF, and he might be willing to work on modifying EDAS for IETF's needs. jak _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:41:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28820; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HO5-0003ET-Eo; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:46:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HBX-0003Ow-Ds; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7H6n-0002P1-KE for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:28:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27796 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HBk-0002xx-BX for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:33:56 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EHSlwN041755; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:28:48 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EHSlv6041754; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:28:47 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:28:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040914111335.L34252@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Cc: Pekka Savola Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Pekka Savola wrote: > For what it's worth, I don't see why we even need a web tool. Why > not just send the draft over email? You can do the same kind of > challenge-response with that as well if needed. I can deal with > http, but email seems reasonably simple approach at least for the > more experienced... I think this is a very good point if phrased as "there can be more than one interface to the submission toolset". If the submission toolset is implemented along the currently specified lines, it would be simple to auto-post valid drafts via e-mail. If there are no objections, I will add "e-mail interface" option to the draft as a nice-to-have second-generation feature. I believe web interface is still needed for those who want to validate the drafts (and not post them) and just for those who like "preview", list of "warnings", an option to post manually via Secretariat, and other nice features of the web interface. While virtually everything can be done via e-mail (or any other communication protocol), there are things that can be done much more naturally on the web. Fortunately, we do not have to select one interface over the other in this case. > How would the tool know that a draft is intended for "publication > requested" state. Via a checkbox that the submitter may select. >> [[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent? >> --Alex]] > > definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, of > whom we'd never get an ack or nack. Good point. However, do you think the tool should at least try to prevent me from adding you as a co-author for a draft you have no idea about (for example)? We can add "always approve for this draft" flags to authors and reasonable timeouts. Thank you, Alex. -- Protocol performance, functionality, and reliability testing. Tools, services, and know-how. http://www.measurement-factory.com/ _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:52:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29650; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HYj-0003RE-RT; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HJd-0004y8-UK; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:42:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HDR-0003cp-J7; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:35:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28292; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HIN-000370-81; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:40:48 -0400 Message-ID: <013101c49a81$5e4c64a0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Thomas Narten" References: <200409141723.i8EHN7KH006965@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:36:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, Magnus Westerlund , tools-discuss@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thomas, Your points explain why it is possible, with some moderate amount of effort, to get drafts for meetings today, but not specifically why having a page with drafts to be discussed at a meeting is not such a good idea. If generating such page were automated would you see a downside to having such a page? I might note that IEEE and other standardization groups typically do have Web repositories for documents that will be the topic of upcoming meetings, distinct from their longer term document repositories. In the case of 3GPP2, an FTP server is used (at least, that was the case several years ago). jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Narten" To: "James Kempf" Cc: "Magnus Westerlund" ; ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft > FWIW. > > > I usually download a bunch of individual > > drafts that I am intending to read prior to IETF meetings. > > In this day and age, it's pretty simple to just mirror the entire ID > directory. http://www.ietf.org/rsync-help.html > > A mere 140MB (today). > > > Unless the WG chair puts hot links into the agenda (and not all WG > > chairs do), now what I must do is go to the Internet Drafts web page > > and do a full text search for each draft, a timeconsuming and > > tedious process. > > If you have the ID name in the email agenda on your laptop, and a copy > of the entire ID directory, searching/finding is pretty > straightforward. > > > What I would like to see, however, is that individual drafts which > > are submitted to a WG prior to becoming WG drafts are somehow > > indexed and accessable under the WG name, especially if they are to > > be discussed at a meeting. > > What more is needed if you have the agenda and a mirror? > > Folk can (and do) also use the convention of draft--- > to indicate what WG they think the document belongs to. Not sure that > having more than this really helps much. > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:53:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29763; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HZa-0003Sf-KV; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:58:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HRP-00064b-51; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HF0-0003wq-LG; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:37:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28407; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HJw-00039C-6r; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:42:25 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EHbBwN042152; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:37:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EHbBcZ042151; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:37:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:37:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf In-Reply-To: <011501c49a80$356f1420$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Message-ID: <20040914113000.Q34252@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914102132.W34252@measurement-factory.com> <011501c49a80$356f1420$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, James Kempf wrote: >> Also, the conference/journal tools I have used and the ID >> Submission tool we are drafting are rather simple. I would be >> surprised if a lot of time can be saved by customizing an existing >> tool compared to writing a few scripts from scratch. We are talking >> about a few simple pages here. Most of the complexity is in >> validation and posting code that is beyond the scope of the ID >> submission draft and that cannot be adopted (existing IETF-specific >> tools aside) as it is specific to the IETF. > > This is exactly what I am a little concerned about. I'd rather not > see a lot of effort put into "a few scripts from scratch". This > suggests to me something hacked together with little concern about > how it is actually used. I'd rather see a well designed tool with a > good Web-based user interface that automates draft submission (point > and click) with proper attention to workflow. > > It may in fact be the case that the existing conference submission > tools don't satisfy IETF's needs, but I believe due diligence needs > to be done to make sure that is the case. Also, it may also be > possible that one of the existing tools might be easily modified if > IETF's requirements are not all that far off from what it provides. > Henning Schulzrinne is a long time participant in IETF, and he might > be willing to work on modifying EDAS for IETF's needs. Agreed, the Secretariat should reuse if reuse makes most sense. To me, "simple" does not mean "hacked together without concern about how it is actually used and without attention to workflow" :-). Careful use and flow analysis is what the draft in question is supposed to provide to the Secretariat. I just hope that it would be relatively simple to satisfy our requirements (draft interpretation/validation aside). Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 13:58:58 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00214; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Hev-0003an-HJ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:04:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HU4-0006rb-3H; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HL2-0005Ar-8M for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:43:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28930 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HPy-0003GP-5P for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:48:39 -0400 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EHgtmf537966; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:42:55 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i8EHgsVP061592; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:42:54 -0600 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8EHhPAK007565; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:43:25 -0400 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i8EHguT4007556; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:43:25 -0400 Message-Id: <200409141743.i8EHguT4007556@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "James Kempf" In-Reply-To: Message from kempf@docomolabs-usa.com of "Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:36:25 PDT." <013101c49a81$5e4c64a0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:42:56 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, Magnus Westerlund , tools-discuss@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 > Your points explain why it is possible, with some moderate amount of effort, > to get drafts for meetings today, IMO, the effort involved in what I described is less than the effor you described, where you have to go to the IETF search engine on each draft in advance to pull it down. But we might quibble on the relative efforts involved here. :-) > but not specifically why having a page with drafts to be discussed > at a meeting is not such a good idea. If generating such page were > automated would you see a downside to having such a page? Isn't that page simply the WG agenda, in which case it can be and is maintained/managed by the WG chairs? It's getting the secretariat/or ID submission tool involved in this that I'm not fond of. I don't see the need to centralize this or (effectively) require that all WGs do this. Thomas _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 14:01:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00349; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HhE-0003d3-Ex; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:06:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HU4-0006s4-V3; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:52:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HMb-0005D3-7J for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:45:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29060 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cyteen.hactrn.net ([66.92.66.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HRX-0003HX-3y for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:16 -0400 Received: from thrintun.hactrn.net (thrintun.hactrn.net [IPv6:2002:425c:4242:0:250:daff:fe82:1c39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "thrintun.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51D2233; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thrintun.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by thrintun.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248DC42B5; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:44:36 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa At Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > 1) The submission tool tries to run xml2rfc on the file, and reports > failure or success > a) if failure, rejects the document, but accepts the text document > b) if failure, rejects the whole submission > c) does nothing, leaving a broken xml file in the archive (b) would be ok if combined with (4). > 2) Use of the PI is deprecated in xml2rfc, and a > warning issued. This should probably be combined with one of > 1) above No (see below). > 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time > will make 1) less and less needed No no no no no. Eg, the DNSSECbis specs (three documents) are broken up into 85 .xml files, some of which are generated automatically, including a set which are generated by postprocessing the output of a reference implementation of part of the protocol. If weren't present, we would have had to invent it. > 4) Some other resolution? Like using the (undocumented) xml2rfc feature that already solves this? :) $ xml2rfc head.xml concatenated.xml Where "head.xml" is the top-level intput file. How about: -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. Authors who use must preprocess their xml files through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 14:03:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00520; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HjF-0003fs-6X; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:08:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HUM-0006z5-6D; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:53:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HR6-00060W-BN for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:49:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29387 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HW2-0003N7-KL for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:54:55 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EHniwN042569; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:49:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EHnhA7042568; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:49:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:49:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz In-Reply-To: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: [xml2rfc] use of processing instrucrtion X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > 1) The submission tool tries to run xml2rfc on the file, and reports > failure or success > a) if failure, rejects the document, but accepts the text document > b) if failure, rejects the whole submission > c) does nothing, leaving a broken xml file in the archive My strong preference would be for (b). A person should remove offending XML file from the submission if they want option (a). Option (c) seems like a bad idea on general principles of consistency and correctness. Note that the tool can offer the author to remove the offending format (to help with getting to option (a)), but removal must not be automatic, IMO. > 2) Use of the PI is deprecated in xml2rfc, and a > warning issued. This should probably be combined with one of > 1) above > 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time > will make 1) less and less needed Both put carriage in front of the horse, IMO. Include statements are very useful to authors. Xml2Rfc needs better include support, not less include support! > 4) Some other resolution? Preprocess XML to include all includes and submit the processed version. Many folks, myself included, preprocess xml2rfc sources anyway, for many reasons. An alternative is to submit a tarball with all included files. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 15:15:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06355; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7IrA-0004zb-3H; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:20:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7IfM-00072B-Ks; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:08:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7HmT-0006ip-Lf; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:11:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01300; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7HrP-0003qX-Px; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from pun.isi.edu (pun.isi.edu [128.9.160.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i8EIA3J15232; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pun.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pun.isi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i8EIA3Xm093168; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from faber@pun.isi.edu) Received: (from faber@localhost) by pun.isi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i8EIA3iM093167; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from faber) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:03 -0700 From: Ted Faber To: Thomas Narten Message-ID: <20040914181002.GF91659@pun.isi.edu> References: <013101c49a81$5e4c64a0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> <200409141743.i8EHguT4007556@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200409141743.i8EHguT4007556@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-url: http://www.isi.edu/~faber X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: faber@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:08:35 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, James Kempf , jari.arkko@ericsson.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0208682712==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 --===============0208682712== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="udcq9yAoWb9A4FsZ" Content-Disposition: inline --udcq9yAoWb9A4FsZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > > Your points explain why it is possible, with some moderate amount of effort, > > to get drafts for meetings today, > > IMO, the effort involved in what I described is less than the effor > you described, where you have to go to the IETF search engine on each > draft in advance to pull it down. But we might quibble on the > relative efforts involved here. :-) FWIW, I do what Thomas has advocated - rsync RFCs and I-Ds before the meeting - and look for things with ls. It works very well, even for groups I attend on the spur of the moment, and is dirt simple. -- Ted Faber http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG --udcq9yAoWb9A4FsZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBRzP6aUz3f+Zf+XsRAsbXAKCHEZlTR5dyXs4h3K4P1ri2iIhkJgCeJ36T fWNvWlS+GkUifcB+EWOJlwA= =k0ls -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --udcq9yAoWb9A4FsZ-- --===============0208682712== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============0208682712==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 15:26:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07306; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7J1U-000591-N9; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7IoF-0003Ei-CM; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:17:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Im1-0002B2-FS; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:15:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06334; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.105]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Iqy-0004xm-2q; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:20:37 -0400 Received: by av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id EE7EA37E7B; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC42A37E45; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A529638016; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7IlT-000428-Ev; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4147432F.8020500@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scott bradner Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft References: <20040914165640.2D7E3906C3@newdev.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040914165640.2D7E3906C3@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit scott bradner wrote: >>>give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft >>>if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. >> >>!! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in >>the team. I like it :-) > > > this process has caused significant issues in teh past > > people can get quite burnt if they get a very public rebuke by having > their ID removed - I do not think this is a good idea (plus the fact > is that IDs never get removed from teh net - that ID will be there about > forever with the wrong name) The 'rebuked' feeling is one clear downside. The fact that a lot of places are rsyncing against the archive at all times is something I didn't think of in my first reaction. That means that it is essentially impossible to completely remove a draft once it has hit the archive. To me, this makes the idea very much less attractive. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 15:41:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08434; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7JG6-0005SO-OW; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:46:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7J6M-0003Jw-3T; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:36:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7J4f-0002SS-H7; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:34:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08061; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7J9a-0005Jm-Jb; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:39:52 -0400 Received: by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 776BC38213; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:34:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAF738218; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:34:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3C837E7C; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7J44-0004AR-VB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:34:09 +0200 Message-ID: <414747B0.50309@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:34:08 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Kempf References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> <4146B3C9.30806@ericsson.com> <007c01c49a75$4fdbea00$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> In-Reply-To: <007c01c49a75$4fdbea00$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi James, James Kempf wrote: > What I would like to see, however, is that individual drafts which are > submitted to a WG prior to becoming WG drafts are somehow indexed and > accessable under the WG name, especially if they are to be discussed at a > meeting. I usually download a bunch of individual drafts that I am intending > to read prior to IETF meetings. Unless the WG chair puts hot links into the > agenda (and not all WG chairs do), now what I must do is go to the Internet > Drafts web page and do a full text search for each draft, a timeconsuming > and tedious process. If I understand you correctly, you would be as well served if some other method of providing hot links from workgroup agendas were provided. I got frustrated some time ago at the lack of hot links, and set up a massaged IETF agenda pointing to workgroup agendas which also had been massaged to make all draft-...... and rfc.... words into links, e.g.: http://ietf.levkowetz.com/rfcmarkup.cgi?url=http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04aug/v6ops.txt Would something like this serve, if provided through the regular meeting agenda? Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 17:31:41 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23189; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Kyp-0001dw-IT; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:36:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7KXJ-0006nW-AI; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:08:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7K50-0004Bp-6P; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:39:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17516; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7K9x-0008T3-GA; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:44:18 -0400 Message-ID: <01a901c49a9a$ffa17930$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Henrik Levkowetz" References: <3CF661B1787ABF41A869BE20108F8D6D0892E1@esebe056.ntc.nokia.com> <4146B3C9.30806@ericsson.com> <007c01c49a75$4fdbea00$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> <414747B0.50309@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:39:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, this would be exactly what is needed. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henrik Levkowetz" To: "James Kempf" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft > Hi James, > > James Kempf wrote: > > > What I would like to see, however, is that individual drafts which are > > submitted to a WG prior to becoming WG drafts are somehow indexed and > > accessable under the WG name, especially if they are to be discussed at a > > meeting. I usually download a bunch of individual drafts that I am intending > > to read prior to IETF meetings. Unless the WG chair puts hot links into the > > agenda (and not all WG chairs do), now what I must do is go to the Internet > > Drafts web page and do a full text search for each draft, a timeconsuming > > and tedious process. > > If I understand you correctly, you would be as well served if some > other method of providing hot links from workgroup agendas were provided. > > I got frustrated some time ago at the lack of hot links, and set up a > massaged IETF agenda pointing to workgroup agendas which also had been > massaged to make all draft-...... and rfc.... words into links, e.g.: > > > http://ietf.levkowetz.com/rfcmarkup.cgi?url=http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04aug/v6ops.txt > > Would something like this serve, if provided through the regular meeting > agenda? > > Henrik > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 17:50:22 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25046; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LGv-00028o-AH; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:55:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Kvv-0006Dg-E5; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:33:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Ke2-0000rz-C7 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:15:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21993 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Kiz-0001Hg-UG for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:20:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 28436 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Sep 2004 21:14:47 -0000 Received: from p54856D01.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (84.133.109.1) by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 23:14:47 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <41475F43.9080703@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:14:43 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: [xml2rfc] use of processing instrucrtion References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Henrik Levkowetz , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> 1) The submission tool tries to run xml2rfc on the file, and reports >> failure or success >> a) if failure, rejects the document, but accepts the text document >> b) if failure, rejects the whole submission >> c) does nothing, leaving a broken xml file in the archive > > > My strong preference would be for (b). A person should remove offending > XML file from the submission if they want option (a). Option (c) seems > like a bad idea on general principles of consistency and correctness. +1. > Note that the tool can offer the author to remove the offending format > (to help with getting to option (a)), but removal must not be automatic, > IMO. > >> 2) Use of the PI is deprecated in xml2rfc, and a >> warning issued. This should probably be combined with one of >> 1) above >> 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time >> will make 1) less and less needed > > > Both put carriage in front of the horse, IMO. Include statements are > very useful to authors. Xml2Rfc needs better include support, not less > include support! Include statements are useful, but *this* mechanism is borked. For instance, a document using reference includes by definition won't validate according to the DTD, and we *do* want people to validate, right? >> 4) Some other resolution? > > > Preprocess XML to include all includes and submit the processed version. > Many folks, myself included, preprocess xml2rfc sources anyway, for many > reasons. I think that's the best approach. In particular, the *author* should have both control and responsibility of what the references actually contain, and the resultant text should be immutable independant of when the xml2rfc-to-text conversion is run. > An alternative is to submit a tarball with all included files. -1 Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 17:51:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25101; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LHX-00029Y-5c; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:56:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Kxh-00075c-7c; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:35:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7JDn-0006SQ-Sc for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:44:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08953 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exprod6ob4.obsmtp.com ([12.158.35.214] helo=psmtp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7JIh-0005Xm-KJ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:49:20 -0400 Received: from source ([192.150.22.7]) by exprod6ob4.obsmtp.com ([12.158.35.250]) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:04 PDT Received: from inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-3 [153.32.251.51]) by smtp-relay-7.sea.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8EJi3Nf013284; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsj-dev (mailsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.192]) by inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EJi2kq011541; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MasinterT40 (c-130-169.corp.adobe.com [153.32.130.169]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0I4100LSXQTEPA@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:02 -0700 From: Larry Masinter Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft In-reply-to: <41460A2F.3000300@att.com> To: "'Tony Hansen'" Message-id: <0I4100LSYQTEPA@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcSZ1KaTfXuED1UtTAKgt6gyipfzaAAvWiFg X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:35:39 -0400 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Personally, until XML2RFC came along, I almost always submitted Internet Drafts as ASCII text without any pagination at all. * The utility of pagination is low: As long as there are section numbers, it's perfectly reasonable and more useful to identify a sentence in a draft by section number, paragraph number, and context, rather than by page number and line number; in any case, such references work even when there are multiple formats. When internet drafts get turned into RFCs, the pagination changes anyway, so it's not particularly useful for the submitter to pre-paginate. Most people have tools that will allow them to paginate text/plain documents themselves, in a way that suites their reading environment. Pagination doesn't help reading ASCII text online. * Pagination gets in the way: If you're editing the text in ASCII with, say, emacs, the pagination gets in the way, since the text editor won't automatically adjust pagination. If you're running diffs between one version and the next, the pagination often changes, and the pagination changes obscure the diffs display. So I would like to see submission of ASCII text internet drafts allow (and possibly even encourage) unpaginated text/plain. Larry > Not for -00 drafts. As long as they're strictly ascii, I personally > could care less if the pagination of -00 drafts comes out strange; at > least their content is still readable. However, I WOULD like to see them > checked for non-ascii characters. Strange characters often cause > problems for printing and their readability. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 17:56:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25746; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LMQ-0002JM-Rk; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:01:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7L3u-0008TV-79; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:42:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7KvU-00060n-8d for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:33:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23370 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7L0R-0001gq-Rk for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:38:33 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8ELXBwN053199; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:33:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8ELXAuo053198; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:33:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:33:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Julian Reschke Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: [xml2rfc] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <41475F43.9080703@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20040914152447.R34252@measurement-factory.com> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> <41475F43.9080703@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> 2) Use of the PI is deprecated in xml2rfc, and a >>> warning issued. This should probably be combined with one of >>> 1) above >>> 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time >>> will make 1) less and less needed >> >> Both put carriage in front of the horse, IMO. Include statements >> are very useful to authors. Xml2Rfc needs better include support, >> not less include support! > > Include statements are useful, but *this* mechanism is borked. For > instance, a document using reference includes by definition won't > validate according to the DTD, and we *do* want people to validate, > right? If s violate DTD, then we should fix DTD, s, or both. What I am trying to say is that a mechanism to include external fragments into drafts is useful and needed. If the current mechanism is broken, it should be fixed one way or another. This is unrelated to the ID submission tool functionality. Regardless of the above, authors should submit [preprocessed] XML that does not need external fragments. We seem to agree on this. If xml2rfc provides such preprocessing abilities natively, that would make users even happier. If not, a simple XSLT/Perl/etc. script can do the job. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 18:19:36 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29500; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LjE-0002pl-3H; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:24:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7LTM-0001SD-U8; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:08:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7LGd-0004Ig-6S for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:55:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25506 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LLb-0002FU-GA for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:00:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 7604 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Sep 2004 21:54:41 -0000 Received: from pD9E513FC.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (217.229.19.252) by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 23:54:41 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <41476896.3040404@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:54:30 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: [xml2rfc] use of processing instrucrtion References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> <41475F43.9080703@gmx.de> <20040914152447.R34252@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040914152447.R34252@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > If s violate DTD, then we should fix DTD, s, or both. > What I am trying to say is that a mechanism to include external > fragments into drafts is useful and needed. If the current mechanism is > broken, it should be fixed one way or another. This is unrelated to the > ID submission tool functionality. Correct. We had a discussion about *how* this could be done a few months ago, but with no result. I guess it's a good moment to start it again :-) > Regardless of the above, authors should submit [preprocessed] XML that > does not need external fragments. We seem to agree on this. If xml2rfc > provides such preprocessing abilities natively, that would make users > even happier. If not, a simple XSLT/Perl/etc. script can do the job. We agree here. I find it particulary important that the submitted XML file will have the same contents in the references no matter *when* it is run thhrough the xml2rfc formatter, thus inclusion during authoring is good, but implicit inclusion on submission (or even later) IMHO is a Bad thing. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 14 18:27:29 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00335; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Lqr-0002zl-0W; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:32:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7LdP-0007j0-1B; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:18:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7LNO-00071n-2o for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:02:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27193 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7LSM-0002Wh-LU for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:07:23 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8EM1twN054483; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:01:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8EM1tRJ054482; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:01:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:01:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Julian Reschke Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: [xml2rfc] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <41476896.3040404@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20040914155708.F34252@measurement-factory.com> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914113915.J34252@measurement-factory.com> <41475F43.9080703@gmx.de> <20040914152447.R34252@measurement-factory.com> <41476896.3040404@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Julian Reschke wrote: > I find it particulary important that the submitted XML file will > have the same contents in the references no matter *when* it is run > thhrough the xml2rfc formatter, thus inclusion during authoring is > good, but implicit inclusion on submission (or even later) IMHO is a > Bad thing. Agreed. Note, however, that if a reference does not change with time (e.g., a reference to an RFC), then it is not a problem, in principle, to include such references dynamically (so to speak). A perhaps nastier problem is xml2rfc versioning. We all know that rendered drafts may look rather different when xml2rfc versions change. I am not sure how to combat that (short of the submitter specifying the xml2rfc version to be used, which is kind of ugly). Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 15 05:12:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15064; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Vv7-00073N-N9; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:17:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Vle-0000Gk-3C; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:07:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Ue2-0002xo-Tz; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:56:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09898; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postman.ripe.net ([193.0.0.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Uj6-0005M1-5Q; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:01:17 -0400 Received: by postman.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id A0F2F55EA4; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by postman.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA2655E90; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from x50.ripe.net (x50.ripe.net [193.0.1.50]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.10/8.11.6) with SMTP id i8F7tTDI007013; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:55:29 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:55:29 +0200 From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" To: "James Kempf" Message-Id: <20040915095529.6f99b6bf.olaf@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <013101c49a81$5e4c64a0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> References: <200409141723.i8EHN7KH006965@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <013101c49a81$5e4c64a0$536115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Organization: RIPE NCC X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Status: N 0.000014 / 0.0 / 0.0 / disabled X-RIPE-Signature: 313313032a312a12a465f9ba5267c206 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:07:56 -0400 Cc: narten@us.ibm.com, wgchairs@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:36:25 -0700 "James Kempf" wrote: > but not specifically why having a page > with drafts to be discussed at a meeting is not such a good idea. If > generating such page were automated would you see a downside to having such > a page? Yes. Setting the agenda is a human's job, more specifically the chair's job. That human ought to have at least read and understood the abstract (if not the whole draft) and group discussion items and set the times. Let's not automate that. I am all for having "hot" links in the agenda as published on the IETF site. That would help the participants. For people that tend to prepare themselves in networkless places such as planes hot links are not of that much use. But then again they probably do an rsync. --Olaf ---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman ---------------------------------| RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 15 09:37:31 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03252; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7a3e-0003dC-EM; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:42:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Znl-0002AT-TT; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:26:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Xxx-0000zi-R9; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:28:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23321; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p2.piuha.net ([131.160.192.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Y34-0000zP-DN; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:34:06 -0400 Received: from ericsson.com (p2.piuha.net [131.160.192.2]) by p2.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8A8986C; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:28:47 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <41482734.5040003@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:27:48 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sob@harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft References: <20040914165640.2D7E3906C3@newdev.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040914165640.2D7E3906C3@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:26:25 -0400 Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, henrik@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sob@harvard.edu wrote: >>>give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft >>>if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. >> >>!! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in >>the team. I like it :-) > > > this process has caused significant issues in teh past > > people can get quite burnt if they get a very public rebuke by having > their ID removed - I do not think this is a good idea (plus the fact > is that IDs never get removed from teh net - that ID will be there about > forever with the wrong name) Ok -- given that the IDs can get distributed very widely it is perhaps best to ensure that the I-Ds have authorization first before assigning them a WG-based name. And I was surprised by the amount of people who have had experiences with non-approved WG document submissions! However, I'm still hoping that the authorization process can be made as smooth as possible. Perhaps you can allow both prior authorizations as well as enabling a chair to allow a pending I-D submission. (Or maybe the manual secretariat process can handle the latter case? This could handle also the AD-approvals when both chairs are unavailable.) --Jari _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 15 18:39:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21954; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7iVq-00088G-S4; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:44:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7iLC-0007OA-R6; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:33:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7iFf-0006Of-L5 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:27:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21209 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7iKq-0007yy-L7 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:33:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 20375 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Sep 2004 22:27:07 -0000 Received: from pD9FF03A2.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (217.255.3.162) by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 00:27:07 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4148C1B7.2060103@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:03 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Austein Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> In-Reply-To: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob Austein wrote: > ... >>3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time >> will make 1) less and less needed > > > No no no no no. Eg, the DNSSECbis specs (three documents) are broken > up into 85 .xml files, some of which are generated automatically, > including a set which are generated by postprocessing the output of a > reference implementation of part of the protocol. > > If weren't present, we would have had to invent it. No, you wouldn't have to. You can just use the standard XML mechanisms instead (as documented on xml.resource.org). >>4) Some other resolution? > > > Like using the (undocumented) xml2rfc feature that already solves > this? :) > > $ xml2rfc head.xml concatenated.xml > > Where "head.xml" is the top-level intput file. > > How about: > > -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. > > Authors who use must preprocess their xml files > through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. Yep. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 15 19:25:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24154; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7jEX-0000L4-36; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:30:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7j3j-0006Gv-Dd; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:19:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7iIL-0006ej-Ie for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:30:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21324 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7iNX-00080f-0A for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:35:56 -0400 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8FMTqG8024204; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:29:52 -0700 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i8FMTqaN024203; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:29:52 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:29:52 -0700 From: David Meyer To: Rob Austein Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Message-ID: <20040915222952.GA24197@1-4-5.net> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7 X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:19:29 -0400 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 >> If weren't present, we would have had to invent it. >> >> > 4) Some other resolution? >> >> Like using the (undocumented) xml2rfc feature that already solves >> this? :) >> >> $ xml2rfc head.xml concatenated.xml >> >> Where "head.xml" is the top-level intput file. >> >> How about: >> >> -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. >> >> Authors who use must preprocess their xml files >> through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. Yep, seems a completely reasonable resolution. Dave _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 15 19:25:41 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24188; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7jEy-0000LS-2V; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:31:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7j3j-0006H0-Ip; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:19:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7iYR-0001Gm-Se for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:47:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22335 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7idd-0008EO-Il for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:52:34 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2004 15:46:42 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-160.cisco.com [10.21.88.160]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id i8FMkULp018575; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:46:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:46:28 -0400 From: Scott W Brim To: Rob Austein Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Message-ID: <20040915224628.GX1644@sbrim-w2k01> References: <41472409.9010107@levkowetz.com> <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:19:29 -0400 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 01:44:36PM -0400, Rob Austein allegedly wrote: > > 3) Use of is removed from xml2rfc, which with time > > will make 1) less and less needed > > No no no no no. Eg, the DNSSECbis specs (three documents) are broken > up into 85 .xml files, some of which are generated automatically, > including a set which are generated by postprocessing the output of a > reference implementation of part of the protocol. > > If weren't present, we would have had to invent it. but it's there, as you say: > Like using the (undocumented) xml2rfc feature that already solves > this? :) > > $ xml2rfc head.xml concatenated.xml > > Where "head.xml" is the top-level intput file. > > How about: > > -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. > > Authors who use must preprocess their xml files > through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. Good. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 00:28:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23665; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7nxw-0005Nl-Me; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:33:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7nl1-0003Sw-Ah; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:20:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7nk9-00032i-DI for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:19:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23364 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7npN-0005G9-OG for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:25:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8G4IoZ22601; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:18:50 +0300 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:18:49 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Rob Austein Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Rob Austein wrote: > At Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > 1) The submission tool tries to run xml2rfc on the file, and reports > > failure or success > > a) if failure, rejects the document, but accepts the text document > > b) if failure, rejects the whole submission > > c) does nothing, leaving a broken xml file in the archive > > (b) would be ok if combined with (4). [...] > > 4) Some other resolution? > > -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. > > Authors who use must preprocess their xml files > through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. If this is the case, I'd vote that the xml2rfc interface at xml.resource.org be able to do the postprocessing, and also burp out .xml files as .xml output (with the content set to octet-string, so the browsers don't try to render it). There are folks who *don't* want to install xml2rfc, and just use the web interface effectively. If we want to get xml2rfc to wider use, the number of these people should rise [because getting started on xml is so much simpler if you don't need to worry about xml editors, xml2rfc or whatnot at all], not decrease. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 00:35:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23924; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7o4K-0005T3-Op; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:40:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7nsz-0004bd-95; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:28:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7nmi-0003vR-OQ for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:22:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23432 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7nry-0005IZ-8s for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8G4LfU22648; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:42 +0300 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:41 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Alex Rousskov In-Reply-To: <20040914111335.L34252@measurement-factory.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [Tools-discuss] illegitimate co-authors [Re: I-D submission tool draft] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> [[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent? > >> --Alex]] > > > > definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, of > > whom we'd never get an ack or nack. > > Good point. However, do you think the tool should at least try to > prevent me from adding you as a co-author for a draft you have no idea > about (for example)? We can add "always approve for this draft" flags > to authors and reasonable timeouts. This is not prevented today, and I think there are serious disadvantages to it (relating to the latecy of getting an ack), so I think this should be out of scope for this tool. At most, the tool could send an email to all of the authors listed in the draft, and wait until *one* of them sends an acknowledgement, but that wouldn't prevent what you describe, and would have problems e.g., when WG chairs try to submit document on absent authors' behalf. So, I'd suggest just skipping this attempt. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:03:52 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25291; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7oWF-0005sx-4G; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:09:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7oQ1-0001Fw-OK; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:02:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7oGG-0008Ka-7O for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:52:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24699 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7oLV-0005i9-3J for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:58:14 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8G4qjwN031617; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:52:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8G4qjff031616; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:52:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:52:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] illegitimate co-authors [Re: I-D submission tool draft] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040915224035.G26985@measurement-factory.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: >>>> [[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent? >>>> --Alex]] >>> >>> definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, >>> of whom we'd never get an ack or nack. >> >> Good point. However, do you think the tool should at least try to >> prevent me from adding you as a co-author for a draft you have no >> idea about (for example)? We can add "always approve for this >> draft" flags to authors and reasonable timeouts. > > This is not prevented today, and I think there are serious > disadvantages to it (relating to the latecy of getting an ack), so I > think this should be out of scope for this tool. Noted. Looks like another issue where there is no clear consensus so far. If it were not for "by submitting this draft, all authors..." IPR statements, I would be much less concerned. Not surprisingly, folks position seem to depend on whether they were personally bitten by a given technically preventable problem. That's why "design by committee" rarely works, I guess :-). > At most, the tool could send an email to all of the authors listed > in the draft, and wait until *one* of them sends an acknowledgement, > but that wouldn't prevent what you describe, and would have problems > e.g., when WG chairs try to submit document on absent authors' > behalf. > > So, I'd suggest just skipping this attempt. At the very least, I would suggest sending a "your draft has been posted" e-mail to all listed authors and the WG mailing list (for WG drafts). No response would be required/solicited. While this scheme does not allow for abuse prevention, it discourages abuse and helps folks notice problems (and updates) faster. In the future, it would be nice to let "3rd party" folks register their e-mails to receive such notifications for a given draft or WG activity. Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:56:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28472; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pL7-0006lo-9t; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:01:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p7S-0002au-7k; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:47:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p3X-0001jK-Q3 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:43:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27945 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7p8n-0006ZB-2M for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:49:10 -0400 Received: by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6DD4038136; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:43:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EFB380C1 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:43:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0519D37E48 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:43:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p2x-0002C5-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:43:07 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:43:07 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916074307.2e6c3de0@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding this to the tools-discuss list. /henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Manning To: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, bmanning@ISI.EDU Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft % % Bill says: % actually, i think that the WG chairs are the -wrong- people % to ensure that the right text is part of each -00 IDs. you % really want proper legal review of each -00 id to ensure that % the copyright text is correct/intact. % % I do not recall saying anything about the WG chairs doing this Hum.... this follows from the last para of your email, excerpted below, where you intimate that an idea for "making" this work is to require WG chairs to pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs. I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think it should be the only way that the process should be able to work Scott _______________________________________________ % % the reason the WG chairs are in the loop today (and tomorrow) is to % ensure that the WG thinks the document should be a WG document, it % has nothing to do with WG chairs checking boilerplate yes, nessasary but not sufficent. Most WG chairs are not licensed legal advisors. % % Scott % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:56:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28491; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pLR-0006m1-1R; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:02:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p7T-0002b1-LH; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:47:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p5C-00024P-31 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:45:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27997 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av1-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.116]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pAR-0006aZ-He for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:50:52 -0400 Received: by av1-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4336638480; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182]) by av1-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302A437F46 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CFA37E47 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p4e-0002CL-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:44:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:44:52 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916074452.58e4802a@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:21:59 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) To: bmanning@ISI.EDU, sob@harvard.edu Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft Bill says: actually, i think that the WG chairs are the -wrong- people to ensure that the right text is part of each -00 IDs. you really want proper legal review of each -00 id to ensure that the copyright text is correct/intact. I do not recall saying anything about the WG chairs doing this the reason the WG chairs are in the loop today (and tomorrow) is to ensure that the WG thinks the document should be a WG document, it has nothing to do with WG chairs checking boilerplate Scott _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:56:56 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28509; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pLc-0006md-8C; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:02:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pCa-00031D-Uy; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:53:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p6J-0002OJ-NB for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28046 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pBZ-0006bm-55 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:52:02 -0400 Received: by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 9989238188; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86636380C1 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7754037E44 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p5n-0002Cg-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:03 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916074603.72396ded@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:28:05 +0100 From: Gorry Fairhurst To: "Jari Arkko (JO/LMF)" , wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft IMHO, The way people cite ID's (which we know they should not) leads to a conclusion that SOMEONE MUST check new WG submissions BEFORE they are allocated an draft-ietf-xxx- filename... That way, we prevent people archiving none-drafts. I'd be keen to see WG (Chair) approval of EACH WG draft, afterall authors in the proposed scheme can immediately publish a revised individual submission identical to the WG proposal --- This would also give Chairs time to check the details *AND* Author list. This may be a good time to check all Authors are ACTUALLY going to engage in developing this as a WG document and in the review, etc. Gorry Jari Arkko (JO/LMF) wrote: > > As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes, > we do not have to follow the current manual process, we > can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because > we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not > mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go > smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security > mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time > approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft > if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one. > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:58:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28595; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pMp-0006o7-6p; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:03:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pGL-0003vt-9C; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p8t-0002fr-No for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:49:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28187 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pE8-0006eu-3R for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:54:42 -0400 Received: by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 37B5838692; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F1F38691 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCD337E45 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:48:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p8L-0002D1-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:48:41 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:48:41 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916074841.39123cba@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss list... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:46:38 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Jeffrey Hutzelman Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: re: I-D submission tool draft I stripped off ietf@ietf.org... On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > On Monday, September 13, 2004 08:38:45 -0400 scott bradner > wrote: > > > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be > > able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm > > fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think > > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work I'm not sure if I see this problem. The process in practice could be that the WG chairs ask the authors to send the document to them, they will review it [and iterate as needed, and when done], send in the pre-approval and the the document at the same time. There's no actual requirement that the authors themselves send in the -00 documents. There aren't that many per WG to make it too big a trouble for WG chairs.. > I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the chair > are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. If I'm not > available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning > from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal. It should > _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting > than people are. I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all. It just changes the practical process a little bit, that's all. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 01:58:47 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28622; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pNO-0006oQ-Mh; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:04:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pGL-0003w8-GA; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7p9e-0002h7-2v for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28216 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pEt-0006fG-Fc for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:55:28 -0400 Received: by av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 0F93237F59; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av4-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C0B37ED6 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9D138003 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:49:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p96-0002DD-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:49:28 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:49:28 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916074928.4963418f@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss list... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:56:00 +0300 From: john.loughney@nokia.com To: , Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft Pekka, > > I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the chair > > are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. If I'm not > > available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning > > from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal. It should > > _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting > > than people are. > > I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all. It just > changes the practical process a little bit, that's all. My biggest concern about this is co-ordinating this around IETF meetings. For example, I usually take vacations from mid-June to mid-July so sometimes I am on vacation during the draft cut-off dates. Trying to get everything co-ordinated sufficiently would probably cause something to get missed, which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings to discuss active work items. John _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 02:00:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28902; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pP0-0006q8-MG; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:05:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pGL-0003wM-P2; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pAL-0002nT-1S for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:50:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28279 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pFb-0006fu-BS for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:11 -0400 Received: by av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6DDDC37FE1; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C4337E47 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3911937E44 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7p9o-0002DP-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:12 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:12 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916075012.0bc01f63@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss list... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:44:39 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > > I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the chair > > > are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. If I'm not > > > available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning > > > from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal. It should > > > _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting > > > than people are. > > > > I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all. It just > > changes the practical process a little bit, that's all. > > My biggest concern about this is co-ordinating this around IETF meetings. > For example, I usually take vacations from mid-June to mid-July so sometimes I am > on vacation during the draft cut-off dates. Trying to get everything > co-ordinated sufficiently would probably cause something to get missed, > which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings to discuss > active work items. Don't take vacations then. That's why being a WG chair gives you the big bucks ;-). But seriously, unless WG chairs/secretaries coordinate, having long vacations prior to the meetings is a recipe for disaster. Maybe this calls for a slightly different meeting times, or just sacrifices wrt. vacations from the chairs and WG participants.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 02:03:01 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01071; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pRU-0006rG-7F; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:08:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pGN-0003xz-Ob; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pB0-0002qg-V2 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:51:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28337 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pGH-0006gs-9f for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:53 -0400 Received: by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 5C82037F17; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av5-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7F437E77 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C36137E42 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7pAU-0002DS-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:54 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:50:54 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916075054.56ff3851@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss list... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:00:41 +0300 From: john.loughney@nokia.com To: Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft Pekka, > Don't take vacations then. That's why being a WG chair gives you the > big bucks ;-). > > But seriously, unless WG chairs/secretaries coordinate, having long > vacations prior to the meetings is a recipe for disaster. Maybe this > calls for a slightly different meeting times, or just sacrifices wrt. > vacations from the chairs and WG participants.. Well, I generally push back on new processes or procedures unless there is clearly reasons for the processes. What is the problem that the new process is trying to solve & is the burden of the new process significantly less than the burden which the problem is currently causing - these are always my first questions. The current draft says: .... No malicious impersonations or fake approvals have been reported to date however. Lack of authentication is not perceived as a serious problem, possibly because serious falsification are likely to be noticed before serious damage can be done. Due to informal and manual nature of the submission mechanism, its massive automated abuse is unlikely to cause anything but a short denial of draft posting service and, hence, is probably not worth defending against. However, future automation may result in a different trade off. Which indicates to me that there is not a current problem, so at present we don't need to burder WG chairs with more processes. Interupting my vacation does represent a burden to me. Addionally, there is the possiblity of disruption if WG drafts are not approved in time to make meeting draft cut-offs. This could impact upon the timely-ness of a WG to meet its charter, if a draft misses one meeting cycle. John _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 02:03:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01259; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pRi-0006rU-4a; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:08:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pGN-0003y4-Ut; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:56:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pBp-0002wS-UX for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:52:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28358 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pH6-0006hd-Em for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:57:44 -0400 Received: by av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id D664237EB2; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AB737E47 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E5437E45 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7pBK-0002De-00 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:51:46 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:51:46 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <20040916075146.29160e21@chardonnay> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fw: I-D submission tool draft X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding to tools-discuss list... /Henrik -------- Begin forwarded message: -------- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:05:50 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: scott bradner , ietf@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: re: I-D submission tool draft On Monday, September 13, 2004 08:38:45 -0400 scott bradner wrote: > I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs > pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be > able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm > fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work I agree. While both submission of the document and approval by the chair are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order. If I'm not available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal. It should _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting than people are. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 02:18:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13238; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pgP-00075S-JH; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:23:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pWA-0004P4-Rm; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:13:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7pQV-0002hB-99 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:07:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA04654 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7pVk-0006vE-ST for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:54 -0400 Received: by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 27F2438654; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156CB385B9; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C321537E46; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1]) by chardonnay.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7pPy-0002He-00; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:54 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:53 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Message-Id: <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> In-Reply-To: References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Pekka, On Thursday, 16 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Authors who use must preprocess their xml files > > through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. > > If this is the case, I'd vote that the xml2rfc interface at > xml.resource.org be able to do the postprocessing, and also burp out > .xml files as .xml output (with the content set to octet-string, so > the browsers don't try to render it). > > There are folks who *don't* want to install xml2rfc, and just use the > web interface effectively. If we want to get xml2rfc to wider use, > the number of these people should rise [because getting started on xml > is so much simpler if you don't need to worry about xml editors, > xml2rfc or whatnot at all], not decrease. I don't see a problem with having the xml2rfc which is run as part of the I-D submission validation use the same reference libraries as the web interface at xml.resouce.org (I'm assuming here that it uses the publicly available bibxml reference libraries). In this respect, the two could be pretty similar - the xml.resource.org doesn't handle the general case either (as far as I know). Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 03:17:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17742; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7qbV-00086M-P0; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:22:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7qNH-0000v3-QI; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:08:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7qCo-0007jx-8T for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:57:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16429 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:57:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7qI4-0007gi-3n for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:02:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 21555 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Sep 2004 06:56:47 -0000 Received: from pD9FF03A2.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (217.255.3.162) by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 08:56:47 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <41493927.80307@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:56:39 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Rob Austein , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pekka Savola wrote: > ... >>>4) Some other resolution? >> >> -Submitting- xml that uses is not allowed. >> >> Authors who use must preprocess their xml files >> through xml2rfc to produce a single concatenated file. > > > If this is the case, I'd vote that the xml2rfc interface at > xml.resource.org be able to do the postprocessing, and also burp out > .xml files as .xml output (with the content set to octet-string, so > the browsers don't try to render it). That's what the Content-Disposition response header is for... > There are folks who *don't* want to install xml2rfc, and just use the > web interface effectively. If we want to get xml2rfc to wider use, > the number of these people should rise [because getting started on xml > is so much simpler if you don't need to worry about xml editors, > xml2rfc or whatnot at all], not decrease. You don't necessarily need xml2rfc for that. For instance, and XSLT processor will do that nicely as well. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 11:19:52 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19223; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7y8U-0002mh-Sr; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:25:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7xrX-0003bU-39; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:07:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7xpH-00039x-GI for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:05:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18186 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7xub-0002Oa-Kz for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:11:07 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8GF5VwN052545; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:05:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8GF5V3J052544; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:05:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:05:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> Message-ID: <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Pekka Savola , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > I don't see a problem with having the xml2rfc which is run as part > of the I-D submission validation use the same reference libraries as > the web interface at xml.resouce.org (I'm assuming here that it uses > the publicly available bibxml reference libraries). Whether there is a problem depends on the reference libraries you are talking about. If reference libraries contain only constant entries such as RFC info, there is no big problem in using them. If reference libraries consist of changing entries such as Internet-Draft info, then it is a bad idea to use them because the meaning of submitted XML sources would depend on the time those sources are processed. We must avoid such changes in meaning, IMO. To summarize: If a draft cites something that may change with time, that citation has to be statically embedded and not dynamically linked when posted. If we agree with the above rule, the only remaining question is whether it is worth making an exception for constant s? Would not it be easier if all s are treated uniformly (i.e., require preprocessing)? Most drafts probably contain non-constant s anyway, right? Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 11:47:38 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20956; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7yZM-0003R4-JF; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:53:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7yQe-0008UC-O9; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:44:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7yJ2-0007Pj-Eh for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:36:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20152 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av5-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.113]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7yOK-00038P-Tj for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:41:52 -0400 Received: by av5-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 809AE37E9A; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:35:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177]) by av5-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7145C37E67; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:35:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246D038003; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:35:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7yIS-0000ZR-ET; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:35:44 +0200 Message-ID: <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:35:44 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> I don't see a problem with having the xml2rfc which is run as part of >> the I-D submission validation use the same reference libraries as the >> web interface at xml.resouce.org (I'm assuming here that it uses the >> publicly available bibxml reference libraries). > > > Whether there is a problem depends on the reference libraries you are > talking about. If reference libraries contain only constant entries such > as RFC info, there is no big problem in using them. > > If reference libraries consist of changing entries such as > Internet-Draft info, then it is a bad idea to use them because the > meaning of submitted XML sources would depend on the time those sources > are processed. We must avoid such changes in meaning, IMO. I'm not that sure about this. The primary use of the xml would be for the RFC editor, and what is important that the RFC editor can process the xml file without problems. The RFC editor will probably have it's own version of the draft reference files otherwise resolved through the bibxml libraries, so it would actually be better to keep the include statement in that case, so no manual changes of the references would be needed. > To summarize: If a draft cites something that may change with time, that > citation has to be statically embedded and not dynamically linked when > posted. No, my viewpoint is that the important thing is that the RFC editor can process the draft without problems, and with optimal results for the RFC editor. If we additionally consider having an official archive of XML sources of RF Cs, we'd want the XML source there to be the last one used by the RFC editor, post-processed to do all the includes, not the one submitted by the author, I think. > If we agree with the above rule, the only remaining question is whether > it is worth making an exception for constant s? Would not it be > easier if all s are treated uniformly (i.e., require > preprocessing)? Most drafts probably contain non-constant s > anyway, right? It also happens that RFC references in the bibxml libraries are corrected. No reason to prevent those from being pulled in by the latest version when the RFC editor is processing the xml file. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:29:58 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23788; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zEL-0004Wc-QO; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:35:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7z3u-0001Tg-Ry; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:24:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7ynB-0005SK-Fk for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:07:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22153 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7ysV-0003x5-NE for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:13:01 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8GG7NwN055124; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:07:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8GG7NiI055123; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:07:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:07:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > The primary use of the xml would be for the RFC editor, I strongly disagree. It might look like that today when virtually no IETF tools make use of XML sources until the draft reaches RFC Editor. Even RFC Editor was not using XML sources until recently. Hopefully, this is a temporary situation and we should design for long-term use, when many IETF tools and IETFers will use XML drafts for many purposes. (If that is a permanent situation, we should not even bother with accepting XML draft sources in the first place.) > and what is important that the RFC editor can process the xml file > without problems. What is important, IMO, is that anybody and anything can process XML sources without problems (that includes RFC Editor, of course). > The RFC editor will probably have it's own version of the draft > reference files otherwise resolved through the bibxml libraries, so > it would actually be better to keep the include statement in that > case, so no manual changes of the references would be needed. IMHO, we should minimize RFC Editor work and minimize chances for incorrect edits. No manual changes of the references should be needed for the final version of the draft submitted to the RFC Editor. That includes embedded references. If that is not something we can get today, we should at least optimize in that direction instead of giving RFC Editor more manual responsibilities and things to worry about. >> To summarize: If a draft cites something that may change with time, >> that citation has to be statically embedded and not dynamically >> linked when posted. > > No, my viewpoint is that the important thing is that the RFC editor > can process the draft without problems, and with optimal results for > the RFC editor. I do not think your point contradicts the above rule, but I believe we should optimize for XML draft use within IETF at large, not just for the last stage when the draft reaches RFC Editor. There is a lot more value in XML drafts than just making minor last step editing easier. We are not talking about book publication business; we have a different environment where a very active/important document stage is _before_ it gets to the RFC Editor table. > If we additionally consider having an official archive of XML > sources of RFCs, we'd want the XML source there to be the last one > used by the RFC editor, post-processed to do all the includes, not > the one submitted by the author, I think. Agreed (and that does not contradict the above rule). However, we should also minimize the differences between author-submitted sources and what comes out of RFC Editor queue. >> If we agree with the above rule, the only remaining question is >> whether it is worth making an exception for constant s? >> Would not it be easier if all s are treated uniformly >> (i.e., require preprocessing)? Most drafts probably contain >> non-constant s anyway, right? > > It also happens that RFC references in the bibxml libraries are > corrected. No reason to prevent those from being pulled in by the > latest version when the RFC editor is processing the xml file. The reason is simplicity and consistency of the approach and the ease of use for humans and tools processing drafts. I suspect that RFC Editor software will be able to check embedded references against a library and make whatever fixes are needed. That can and should be automated. Installing a local RFC library for every human or tool just to compile/interpret a draft cannot be automated. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:37:32 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25056; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zLf-0004t1-Qs; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:43:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7z8c-0002JY-Bj; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7ywj-0008Ia-Pb for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:17:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22777 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7z23-0004A4-O0 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:22:53 -0400 Received: by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id A50B73817E; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9823C3816A; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5185538014; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7yw2-00024D-OG; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:38 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> The RFC editor will probably have it's own version of the draft >> reference files otherwise resolved through the bibxml libraries, so it >> would actually be better to keep the include statement in that case, >> so no manual changes of the references would be needed. > > > IMHO, we should minimize RFC Editor work and minimize chances for > incorrect edits. No manual changes of the references should be needed > for the final version of the draft submitted to the RFC Editor. That > includes embedded references. If that is not something we can get today, > we should at least optimize in that direction instead of giving RFC > Editor more manual responsibilities and things to worry about. > Since the format and text the RFC editor uses for references to drafts is different from what is used for draft references in drafts, it was exactly this reasoning which was behind my suggestion of leaving the standard library references in there, un-expanded, so the RFC editor work could be done automatically, instead of hand editing the inlined xml source to fix the references. And the same goes for the case when the bibxml text for a referenced RFC has been updated. Doing the inlining before the submission will leave the old text in the xml file, instead of the updated one which would be generated if the includes to the standard references were kept unexpanded. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:38:44 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25158; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zMo-0004uV-Is; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:44:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7z8h-0002NT-DH; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7z0y-0000dt-Py for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:21:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23095 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7z6J-0004H6-SZ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:27:17 -0400 Received: by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4AC1837F2C; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:21:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39FF837E9E; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:21:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FFF38013; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:21:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C7z0R-0002TI-QU; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:21:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4149BD77.8000105@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:21:11 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: ... >> >> It also happens that RFC references in the bibxml libraries are >> corrected. No reason to prevent those from being pulled in by the >> latest version when the RFC editor is processing the xml file. > > > The reason is simplicity and consistency of the approach and the ease of > use for humans and tools processing drafts. I suspect that RFC Editor > software will be able to check embedded references against a library and > make whatever fixes are needed. That can and should be automated. > Installing a local RFC library for every human or tool just to > compile/interpret a draft cannot be automated. Oh, I'd say that leaving the standard references in place, to be pulled in by an unmodified xml2RFC, is clearly a simpler approach than building a new tool for the RFC editor to fix up outdated reference texts. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:42:06 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25499; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:42:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zQ5-00051M-Bx; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:47:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zI7-0004Oz-6t; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:39:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zBA-0002ry-U1 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:32:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24295 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zGV-0004cV-LI for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:37:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 21337 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Sep 2004 16:31:41 -0000 Received: from p508256DC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.18]) (80.130.86.220) by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 18:31:41 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4149BFE4.6080908@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:31:32 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > ... > Since the format and text the RFC editor uses for references to drafts > is different from what is used for draft references in drafts, it was > exactly this reasoning which was behind my suggestion of leaving the > standard library references in there, un-expanded, so the RFC editor > work could be done automatically, instead of hand editing the inlined > xml source to fix the references. If these are references to Internet Drafts, it IMHO makes more sense to have them properly tagged with in which case they can be trivially postprocessed/updated automatically. As stated before, relying on IDs to be in any way stable is risky. For instance, consider the case of rfc2396bis as submitted (last ID) and how it will get published after the AUTH48 period. > And the same goes for the case when the bibxml text for a referenced > RFC has been updated. Doing the inlining before the submission will > leave the old text in the xml file, instead of the updated one which > would be generated if the includes to the standard references were > kept unexpanded. No, it wouldn't. It would just require a different tool to update it. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:46:44 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25748; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:46:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zUZ-000582-1x; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:52:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zJC-0004eo-Bd; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:40:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zBx-000385-I0 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:33:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24463 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zHJ-0004hi-0c for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:38:38 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8GGX1wN056150; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:33:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8GGX0vk056149; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:33:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:33:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >>> The RFC editor will probably have it's own version of the draft reference >>> files otherwise resolved through the bibxml libraries, so it would >>> actually be better to keep the include statement in that case, so no >>> manual changes of the references would be needed. >> >> IMHO, we should minimize RFC Editor work and minimize chances for >> incorrect edits. No manual changes of the references should be >> needed for the final version of the draft submitted to the RFC >> Editor. That includes embedded references. If that is not something >> we can get today, we should at least optimize in that direction >> instead of giving RFC Editor more manual responsibilities and >> things to worry about. > > Since the format and text the RFC editor uses for references to > drafts is different from what is used for draft references in > drafts, it was exactly this reasoning which was behind my suggestion > of leaving the standard library references in there, un-expanded, If RFC Editor format and text differs from what everybody else is using, would not making that format and text the same be the Right Thing to do, long-term? > so the RFC editor work could be done automatically, instead of hand > editing the inlined xml source to fix the references. It seems to me that whether the references are embedded or not, the RFC Editor work we are talking about here can be done automatically. Am I missing something? > Oh, I'd say that leaving the standard references in place, to be > pulled in by an unmodified xml2RFC, is clearly a simpler approach > than building a new tool for the RFC editor to fix up outdated > reference texts. Not so clear to me. IMO, it is easier to build one tool for the RFC Editor than to worry about includes in every tool that processes XML sources! It looks like we are optimizing different things and, hence, cannot agree on a cost function. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 12:49:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25967; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zWn-0005Bs-HN; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:54:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zJX-0004jT-Nt; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:40:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7zDX-0003TU-UG for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:34:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24904 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7zIs-0004o2-IN for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:40:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 10575 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Sep 2004 16:34:08 -0000 Received: from p508256DC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.18]) (80.130.86.220) by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 18:34:08 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4149C07E.5070701@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:34:06 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BD77.8000105@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4149BD77.8000105@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Oh, I'd say that leaving the standard references in place, to be pulled > in by an unmodified xml2RFC, is clearly a simpler approach than building > a new tool for the RFC editor to fix up outdated reference texts. I'll be happy to provide that tool for no charge in case somebody asks for it. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 14:02:12 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00267; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C80fa-0006vK-BS; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:07:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C80Ms-00025M-UZ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:48:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C80Le-0001kO-1F for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:47:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29311 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.113]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C80Qz-0006Ul-NO for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:52:43 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B3F293852C; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D8A384BA; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5708E37E43; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C80L3-0002yB-3P; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:33 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: ... >> Since the format and text the RFC editor uses for references to drafts >> is different from what is used for draft references in drafts, it was >> exactly this reasoning which was behind my suggestion of leaving the >> standard library references in there, un-expanded, > > > If RFC Editor format and text differs from what everybody else is using, > would not making that format and text the same be the Right Thing to do, > long-term? Not if there is a good reason why they are different in the first place. In a draft, you want to point out the revision of the draft you're referring to, but in an RFC the RFC editor takes out that, and just refers to it as a document by title and authors (work in progress). >> so the RFC editor work could be done automatically, instead of hand >> editing the inlined xml source to fix the references. > > > It seems to me that whether the references are embedded or not, the RFC > Editor work we are talking about here can be done automatically. > Am I missing something? You can automate most things :-) And with new tools, the premises changes. What is in existence at this moment is xml2rfc and either includes in place, or hand correcting, I think. (Input on preferences from the RFC editor would be welcome, though :) > >> Oh, I'd say that leaving the standard references in place, to be >> pulled in by an unmodified xml2RFC, is clearly a simpler approach than >> building a new tool for the RFC editor to fix up outdated reference >> texts. > > > Not so clear to me. IMO, it is easier to build one tool for the RFC > Editor than to worry about includes in every tool that processes XML > sources! Eh? We currently have tools (xml2rfc and rfc2629xslt) which work. How can continuing using these in an optimal manner be more complex than arranging things so you have to build a new tool? Once a putative new tool exists, naturally the best way of arranging things can be reconsidered. It looks like we are optimizing different things and, hence, > cannot agree on a cost function. Could be. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 16:59:47 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21122; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C83RT-0004mt-Gp; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:05:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C83C5-0007VU-9n; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:49:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C82lZ-0002bv-TW for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:22:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16092 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C82qv-0002v6-MQ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:27:40 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8GKM0wN067413; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:22:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8GKM0wu067412; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:22:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:22:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > ... >>> Since the format and text the RFC editor uses for references to >>> drafts is different from what is used for draft references in >>> drafts, it was exactly this reasoning which was behind my >>> suggestion of leaving the standard library references in there, >>> un-expanded, >> >> If RFC Editor format and text differs from what everybody else is >> using, would not making that format and text the same be the Right >> Thing to do, long-term? > > Not if there is a good reason why they are different in the first > place. In a draft, you want to point out the revision of the draft > you're referring to, but in an RFC the RFC editor takes out that, > and just refers to it as a document by title and authors (work in > progress). I do not see the difference as far as XML source is concerned. Both draft-name-version and draft-name references can be expressed with the same XML element. Why does something needs to be taken out or changed in the XML source? [N.B. and I do not understand why I would "want to point" to something different than what my RFC will point to, but that is not important for this discussion] > You can automate most things :-) And with new tools, the premises > changes. What is in existence at this moment is xml2rfc and either > includes in place, or hand correcting, I think. Not sure what you mean, but please note that I am not advocating changing xml2rfc. I am suggesting that XML draft sources submitted for posting should be complete. This will allow new tools (such as XML draft indexers, searchers, and validators) to deal with a complete document and not worry about some external library they need to keep up-to-date (or, worse, in sync with draft posting date??) to correctly interpret a given draft. >> Not so clear to me. IMO, it is easier to build one tool for the RFC >> Editor than to worry about includes in every tool that processes >> XML sources! > > Eh? We currently have tools (xml2rfc and rfc2629xslt) which work. > How can continuing using these in an optimal manner be more complex > than arranging things so you have to build a new tool? If your assumption is that xml2rfc is the only family of tools we will have, then there is no need to talk about rules for draft submissions. My hope is that populating IETF repositories with XML sources will allow for many more useful tools to work with those sources, to provide extra services to Secretariat, IESG, IETFers, and 3rd parties. We do not know what those tools will be exactly, but we do know that there is a lot of information in drafts that cannot be conveniently accessed without XML sources. I want to design with that tool expansion in mind because I do not see the value of posting XML draft sources otherwise. Do you? Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 17:43:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23841; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C847s-0005lJ-0g; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:49:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C83xQ-0001e7-9G; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:38:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C83ry-0000b0-MR for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:32:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23243 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C83xM-0005Yj-DZ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:38:21 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 46ADC37F1D; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3432E37E5B; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EA337E43; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C83rQ-00042o-Nz; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:11 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: ... >> You can automate most things :-) And with new tools, the premises >> changes. What is in existence at this moment is xml2rfc and either >> includes in place, or hand correcting, I think. > > > Not sure what you mean, but please note that I am not advocating > changing xml2rfc. I am suggesting that XML draft sources submitted for > posting should be complete. This will allow new tools (such as XML draft > indexers, searchers, and validators) to deal with a complete document > and not worry about some external library they need to keep up-to-date > (or, worse, in sync with draft posting date??) to correctly interpret a > given draft. I thought we'd already settled this point. I agree with the format the xml source is archived in, but that can be accomplished as well by expanding the standard lib includes when the sources are put into the archives, while providing the RFC editor with a format which with the tools given today gives the least manual work. > >>> Not so clear to me. IMO, it is easier to build one tool for the RFC >>> Editor than to worry about includes in every tool that processes XML >>> sources! >> >> >> Eh? We currently have tools (xml2rfc and rfc2629xslt) which work. How >> can continuing using these in an optimal manner be more complex than >> arranging things so you have to build a new tool? > > > If your assumption is that xml2rfc is the only family of tools we will > have, then there is no need to talk about rules for draft > submissions. My hope is that populating IETF repositories with XML > sources will allow for many more useful tools to work with those > sources, to provide extra services to Secretariat, IESG, IETFers, and > 3rd parties. We do not know what those tools will be exactly, but we do > know that there is a lot of information in drafts that cannot be > conveniently accessed without XML sources. > > I want to design with that tool expansion in mind because I do not see > the value of posting XML draft sources otherwise. Do you? Finally I understand where we've been talking past one another. I'm *not* saying that the archived sources should contain include statements - I'm saying that it would be OK and probably beneficial to let the *submitted* sources contain includes for standard bibxml references. These can be included a split second after the submission, thereby reducing an extra step for the submitter (expansion) and retaining a format which might serve the RFC editor better (if this draft goes on to the RFC editor). Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 17:55:30 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24600; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84JP-00062Q-5U; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:01:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C845V-0002eY-Ky; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C82p8-0004n8-7g for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:25:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16788 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cyphermail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.161] helo=noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C82uV-0003B8-77 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:31:19 -0400 Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (road.marajade.sandelman.ca. [209.82.38.123]) by noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8GKPai29673 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (marajade [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.11/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i8GK3tES002955; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:04:12 -0400 Received: from marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@localhost) by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.11/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i8GECdDt003947; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:12:39 -0400 To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: Message from Henrik Levkowetz of "Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:53 +0200." <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4+dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 15) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:12:39 -0400 Message-ID: <3946.1095343959@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> From: Michael Richardson X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:44 -0400 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- a) can the xml2rfc that is available have an option to warn/error if there are any rfc include's still there? b) it seems that it should really have the option of inlining references as well. My experience is that IDs usually don't have completely up-to-date .xml files, and one may well have non-IETF references that one would like to share. ] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions| firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQUmfVoqHRg3pndX9AQGbEAQAoWuG2P5eCulAc6V4L0mLIq+nL7n/0ssS vlPzefGKX9UUTAPnqBi/yJIXeO29ziSxuXYRr1tU/QMLl8X87+OnBj5Cgyie7ooL qDYtGt6MO35fnvAGndPqKtvDL373a4X5x2IXZHcugn735DTXsTWbJUdDFk7bS/bR bzO2u0jcF+8= =nmKb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 17:55:42 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24621; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84Jd-00062g-2U; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:01:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C845V-0002ed-RC; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C82wf-0000tq-Ir for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18557 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cyphermail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.161] helo=noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8322-0003pk-La for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:39:08 -0400 Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (road.marajade.sandelman.ca. [209.82.38.123]) by noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8GKXSW29800 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (marajade [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.11/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i8GKXSuL003728; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:28 -0400 Received: from marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@localhost) by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.11/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i8GKXRA5003725; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:28 -0400 To: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: Message from Henrik Levkowetz of "Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:06:53 +0200." <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4+dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 15) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3724.1095366807@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> From: Michael Richardson X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:44 -0400 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- a) can the xml2rfc that is available have an option to warn/error if there are any rfc include's still there? b) it seems that it should really have the option of inlining references as well. My experience is that IDs usually don't have completely up-to-date .xml files, and one may well have non-IETF references that one would like to share. ] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions| firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQUmfVoqHRg3pndX9AQGbEAQAoWuG2P5eCulAc6V4L0mLIq+nL7n/0ssS vlPzefGKX9UUTAPnqBi/yJIXeO29ziSxuXYRr1tU/QMLl8X87+OnBj5Cgyie7ooL qDYtGt6MO35fnvAGndPqKtvDL373a4X5x2IXZHcugn735DTXsTWbJUdDFk7bS/bR bzO2u0jcF+8= =nmKb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 18:02:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25001; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84Pp-0006At-AK; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:07:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C84EV-00047x-CO; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:56:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C845m-0002h4-QL for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:47:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24048 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84BA-0005pU-7j for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:52:38 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8GLkuwN071195; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:46:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8GLkuTd071194; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:46:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:46:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Finally I understand where we've been talking past one another. > I'm *not* saying that the archived sources should contain include > statements - I'm saying that it would be OK and probably beneficial > to let the *submitted* sources contain includes for standard bibxml > references. These can be included a split second after the > submission, thereby reducing an extra step for the submitter > (expansion) and retaining a format which might serve the RFC editor > better (if this draft goes on to the RFC editor). I have no objections about submission-time expansion as a submission automation step, though I suspect many drafts include more than just standard references and, hence, will not benefit from it. We already know many authors that use s to include pieces of documents and/or co-author data. Such documents would need to be expanded before the submission. I am not sure what you mean by "retaining a format which might serve the RFC editor better". Do you want to archive two XML sources (original and expanded)? Or do you want to archive one XML source (expanded) and give the RFC Editor another (from author's private repository, not expanded)? Something else? Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 18:06:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25170; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84Tz-0006GR-Fm; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:12:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C84LC-0005Bu-99; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:02:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C84H1-0004WF-Hq for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:58:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24800 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C84MP-00066Q-In for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400 Received: by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 7B14E38235; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av9-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675B838231; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A93537E45; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C84GR-00048T-Rb; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:03 +0200 Message-ID: <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:02 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> Finally I understand where we've been talking past one another. I'm >> *not* saying that the archived sources should contain include >> statements - I'm saying that it would be OK and probably beneficial to >> let the *submitted* sources contain includes for standard bibxml >> references. These can be included a split second after the submission, >> thereby reducing an extra step for the submitter (expansion) and >> retaining a format which might serve the RFC editor better (if this >> draft goes on to the RFC editor). > > > I have no objections about submission-time expansion as a submission > automation step, though I suspect many drafts include more than just > standard references and, hence, will not benefit from it. We already > know many authors that use s to include pieces of documents > and/or co-author data. Such documents would need to be expanded before > the submission. Yes. If you submit something which includes stuff which is not in the standard libraries, xml2rfc processing at submit time will fail, and the submission will be rejected. > I am not sure what you mean by "retaining a format which might serve the > RFC editor better". Do you want to archive two XML sources (original and > expanded)? Or do you want to archive one XML source (expanded) and give > the RFC Editor another (from author's private repository, not expanded)? > Something else? I was thinking of retaining the latest version un-expanded, for forwarding to the RFC editor if this turned out to be the version of the draft which was finally approved by the IESG. All versions going into the archive would be expanded. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 16 23:27:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14721; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C89V0-0004o2-8q; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:33:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C89MZ-0002cM-0I; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:24:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C89Dl-0000vA-HU for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:15:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13550 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C89JC-0004Vm-AX for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:15 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8H3FSwN086132; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:15:28 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8H3FSjN086131; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:15:28 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:15:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Marshall Rose Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <88843EF4-0836-11D9-B38F-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Message-ID: <20040916210948.I85434@measurement-factory.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> <88843EF4-0836-11D9-B38F-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Henrik Levkowetz , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Marshall Rose wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2004, at 14:58, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> I was thinking of retaining the latest version un-expanded, for forwarding >> to the RFC editor if this turned out to be the version of the draft which >> was finally approved by the IESG. All versions going into the archive >> would be expanded. > > is this suggestion, coupled with an option to turn off include='...'?>, the final consensus? I do not think there is any need to add an option to turn off support for s in xml2rfc. I may be missing something, but I think the conclusions of this thread imply that no changes to xml2rfc are necessary (which makes your point of not having such discussions on the xml2rfc list stronger). The only xml2rfc-related issue is an apparent need to better document the use of xml2rfc as a preprocessor for PIs. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 01:06:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21065; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8B2l-00077A-PQ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:12:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8AwU-00010t-A9; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:05:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8Aup-0000hr-Sy for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:04:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20855 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8B0F-00072b-Eq for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:09:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8H53Vp24774; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:03:31 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:03:31 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Only tools-discuss, On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > I have no objections about submission-time expansion as a submission > > automation step, though I suspect many drafts include more than just > > standard references and, hence, will not benefit from it. We already > > know many authors that use s to include pieces of documents > > and/or co-author data. Such documents would need to be expanded before > > the submission. > > Yes. If you submit something which includes stuff which is not in the > standard libraries, xml2rfc processing at submit time will fail, and the > submission will be rejected. I'd expect that 95% of drafts *only* include the reference includes, so if the tool is able to use the standard libraries (ones at xml.resource.org), that's good enough. If someone is using xml2rfc to build their documents from parts, that's just fine .. but they can then be expected to also concatenate the final file manually. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 03:13:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11753; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8D1Q-0001Zo-62; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:19:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8Cr7-0001Qv-Dl; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:08:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8CnI-0000Zp-T0 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:04:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11207 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8Csl-0001NS-TU for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:10:13 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 81B9F37EB2; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:03:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182]) by av7-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC3737E7A; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:03:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBD137E47; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:03:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8Cmk-0001MU-9E; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:03:58 +0200 Message-ID: <414A8C5D.2000902@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:03:57 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> <88843EF4-0836-11D9-B38F-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> <20040916210948.I85434@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916210948.I85434@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org, Marshall Rose X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Marshall Rose wrote: > >> >> On Sep 16, 2004, at 14:58, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> >>> I was thinking of retaining the latest version un-expanded, for >>> forwarding >>> to the RFC editor if this turned out to be the version of the draft >>> which >>> was finally approved by the IESG. All versions going into the >>> archive would be expanded. >> >> >> is this suggestion, coupled with an option to turn off > include='...'?>, the final consensus? > > > I do not think there is any need to add an option to turn off support > for s in xml2rfc. I may be missing something, but I think the > conclusions of this thread imply that no changes to xml2rfc are > necessary (which makes your point of not having such discussions on the > xml2rfc list stronger). Agreed. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 08:41:53 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00856; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8I98-0000Oi-CB; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:47:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8I2L-0007Kz-Lu; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:40:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C85Vw-0001gc-Eo for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:18:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29151 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [168.143.123.173] (helo=drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C85bG-0007rB-3m for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:23:44 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8GNHGTv022851; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:17:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> References: <20040914174436.248DC42B5@thrintun.hactrn.net> <20040916080653.162f513b@chardonnay> <20040916085138.P51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149B2D0.9040107@levkowetz.com> <20040916094019.K51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149BC66.5@levkowetz.com> <20040916102039.O51224@measurement-factory.com> <4149D179.3000003@levkowetz.com> <20040916140124.I51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A065B.8010805@levkowetz.com> <20040916153616.N51224@measurement-factory.com> <414A0C6A.6040001@levkowetz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <88843EF4-0836-11D9-B38F-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marshall Rose Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:17:09 -0700 To: Henrik Levkowetz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:40:23 -0400 Cc: xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org, Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sep 16, 2004, at 14:58, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > I was thinking of retaining the latest version un-expanded, for > forwarding > to the RFC editor if this turned out to be the version of the draft > which > was finally approved by the IESG. All versions going into the archive > would be expanded. is this suggestion, coupled with an option to turn off , the final consensus? /mtr ps: and next time some starts a thread like this, can we please have it solely on the tools-discuss list... _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 14:08:06 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24666; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8NF3-00004q-HA; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:13:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8N5t-00006Z-FD; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:04:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8N1z-0007o8-Ud for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:00:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24118 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8N7Y-0008K1-S5 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:06:10 -0400 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i8HHxj6Y013918; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id i8HHxjde013916; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <414A8C5D.2000902@levkowetz.com> To: Henrik Levkowetz Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - I must admit I'm not quite sure I followed all the nuances of this thread. Is this a correct summary? The i-d submission tool will accept xml in rfc2629 format, including the use of the PI. However, authors should not use XML entities as an alternative include mechanism (or, if they do, they should provide an "expanded" version in a single file instead). In terms of distribution, PIs are kept in place all the way through submission to the RFC Editor (at which point, at least with current policy, it is turned into nroff and then edited). However, the archived version of the i-d will expand the include PIs. Did I get it right? Carl [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Marshall Rose wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2004, at 14:58, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> > >>> I was thinking of retaining the latest version un-expanded, for > >>> forwarding > >>> to the RFC editor if this turned out to be the version of the draft > >>> which > >>> was finally approved by the IESG. All versions going into the > >>> archive would be expanded. > >> > >> > >> is this suggestion, coupled with an option to turn off >> include='...'?>, the final consensus? > > > > > > I do not think there is any need to add an option to turn off support > > for s in xml2rfc. I may be missing something, but I think the > > conclusions of this thread imply that no changes to xml2rfc are > > necessary (which makes your point of not having such discussions on the > > xml2rfc list stronger). > > Agreed. > > Henrik > > _______________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 14:50:42 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27224; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8NuI-00011q-EO; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:56:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8Nni-0000TX-7D; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:49:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8NhE-0007dl-6y for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:43:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26815 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av1-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8Nmn-0000qT-GA for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:48:46 -0400 Received: by av1-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 7EEB437EB2; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:42:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182]) by av1-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F7937E5B; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:42:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C92637E49; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8Ngd-0006o1-Ou; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:42:23 +0200 Message-ID: <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:42:23 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carl Malamud Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> In-Reply-To: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carl Malamud wrote: > I must admit I'm not quite sure I followed all the nuances of this thread. > Is this a correct summary? Close, I believe: > The i-d submission tool will accept xml in rfc2629 format, including > the use of the PI ... for sources found in the standard bibxml libraries maintained by Marshall. Using with other sources will cause a failure. > . However, authors should not use > XML entities as an alternative include mechanism (or, if they do, > they should provide an "expanded" version in a single file instead). We've not really discussed XML entities - if they can be resolved without any additional files, by a standard xml2rfc (with web access), I don't now see any reason to prohibit their use. Otherwise, an expanded file will be needed also in this case. > In terms of distribution, PIs are kept in place > all the way through submission to the RFC Editor (at which point, > at least with current policy, it is turned into nroff and then > edited). However, the archived version of the i-d will expand > the include PIs. Yes, that's right. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 15:40:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01379; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8OgO-0002CT-BT; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:46:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8OU4-000804-SM; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:33:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8OQO-0005rm-6m for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:29:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00498 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imh.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.224.4] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8OVx-0001vX-QX for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:35:27 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (imh [134.102.224.4]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8HJTWkS011942; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:29:34 +0200 (MEST) In-Reply-To: <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:29:33 +0200 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS/Sophos at informatik.uni-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carsten Bormann X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm still confused by the discussion. The gist seems to be that, for some forms of external links, it is useful to keep both the expanded form (based on the time of insertion in the archives) and the reference information (which makes it trivial to update the expanded information later). Why don't we do exactly that? Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 16:51:29 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08401; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8PnD-0004xk-MY; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:57:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8PV7-0006Vs-4q; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:38:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8PKp-0000qT-Ji for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:27:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05521 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8PQN-0003uG-SB for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:33:47 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8HKRswN025579; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:27:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8HKRsSW025578; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:27:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:27:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I'm still confused by the discussion. > The gist seems to be that, for some forms of external links, it is > useful to keep both the expanded form (based on the time of > insertion in the archives) and the reference information (which > makes it trivial to update the expanded information later). > Why don't we do exactly that? I think that is what Henrik wants and that is what we are likely to codify. We seem to agree that archived drafts contain no include PIs, just the references. I am not sure where/how Henrik wants to keep PIs for the RFC Editor, but I am sure that will become clear when we start formally documenting this. I am guessing there will be a copy of draft sources (with PIs) kept in the repository, invisible until RFC Editor needs it. PIs in question are pointers to references in Marhall's database. Personally, I see no compelling reason to keep those PIs for the RFC Editor, but I cannot convince Henrik that RFC Editor should adjust their tools to process true/actual references rather than pointers to some semi-official database. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 17 18:58:21 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16826; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8Rm0-0007kV-Qs; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:04:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8Rfv-0001Kw-VM; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:57:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8RZb-0000Cq-Gc for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:51:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16511 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8RfC-0007Yb-TR for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:57:12 -0400 Received: by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id EF04D3810A; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F6337FEC; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C263E38002; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8RYx-0005ac-Vx; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:50:44 +0200 Message-ID: <414B6A43.1040903@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:50:43 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carsten Bormann , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> I'm still confused by the discussion. >> The gist seems to be that, for some forms of external links, it is >> useful to keep both the expanded form (based on the time of insertion >> in the archives) and the reference information (which makes it trivial >> to update the expanded information later). >> Why don't we do exactly that? > > > I think that is what Henrik wants and that is what we are likely to > codify. We seem to agree that archived drafts contain no include PIs, > just the references. I am not sure where/how Henrik wants to keep PIs > for the RFC Editor, but I am sure that will become clear when we start > formally documenting this. I am guessing there will be a copy of draft > sources (with PIs) kept in the repository, invisible until RFC Editor > needs it. Right. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 18 02:46:04 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27779; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8Z43-00015E-0Y; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:51:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8YtL-0006C8-IJ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:40:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8Yor-0005Jj-Ss for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:35:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27374 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imh.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.224.4] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8Ytz-0000tQ-Fv for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:41:20 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (imh [134.102.224.4]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8I6XhwJ026155; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:33:44 +0200 (MEST) In-Reply-To: <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:33:44 +0200 To: Alex Rousskov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS/Sophos at informatik.uni-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carsten Bormann , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sep 17 2004, at 22:27 Uhr, Alex Rousskov wrote: > I am guessing there will be a copy of draft sources (with PIs) kept in > the repository Keeping copies of documents from different stages of the processing sequence is certainly one way to do this (this = keep both linking information and expanded information), but it has all the problems of keeping redundant information in a database. The more obvious way would be to keep both in one document, e.g. by changing the link representation from a PI to an element that, in the most sourcy form, just contains the linking information (typically as attributes), and in bound (archived) form contains both this and the expanded information (typically as element content). The presence of the element itself (as opposed to its content) would have no processing semantics except in a processing step that resolves links. In essence, the link element, when resolved, becomes a container for a cache, which can be re-resolved at any time (e.g., by the RFC editor). Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 18 05:05:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05002; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8bF3-0003zm-L9; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:11:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8b55-0002kN-5p; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:00:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8avn-0000rH-6P for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:50:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04418 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8b0r-0003ho-0M for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:56:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 15489 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Sep 2004 08:47:39 -0000 Received: from p54856FD9.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (84.133.111.217) by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 10:47:39 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <414BF623.9050500@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:47:31 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carsten Bormann wrote: > Keeping copies of documents from different stages of the processing > sequence is certainly one way to do this (this = keep both linking > information and expanded information), but it has all the problems of > keeping redundant information in a database. > > The more obvious way would be to keep both in one document, e.g. by > changing the link representation from a PI to an element that, in the > most sourcy form, just contains the linking information (typically as > attributes), and in bound (archived) form contains both this and the > expanded information (typically as element content). The presence of > the element itself (as opposed to its content) would have no processing > semantics except in a processing step that resolves links. In essence, > the link element, when resolved, becomes a container for a cache, which > can be re-resolved at any time (e.g., by the RFC editor). As mentioned before, we already have this for IETF documents through the seriesInfo information. This can be used to pull in an updated reference anytime without having to rely on an inclusion mechanism. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 18 07:08:02 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10869; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8d9d-0006C6-3S; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:13:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8cyQ-0001Um-Uk; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:01:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8cvv-000156-0X for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:59:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10360 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8d10-000649-2d for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:04:51 -0400 Received: by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id D86C037F50; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.163]) by av1-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A0937E4F; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5158437E46; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8ctk-0000dr-2s; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:56:56 +0200 Message-ID: <414C1477.9070900@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:56:55 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> <414BF623.9050500@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <414BF623.9050500@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carsten Bormann , Alex Rousskov , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julian Reschke wrote: > Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> Keeping copies of documents from different stages of the processing >> sequence is certainly one way to do this (this = keep both linking >> information and expanded information), but it has all the problems of >> keeping redundant information in a database. >> >> The more obvious way would be to keep both in one document, e.g. by >> changing the link representation from a PI to an element that, in the >> most sourcy form, just contains the linking information (typically as >> attributes), and in bound (archived) form contains both this and the >> expanded information (typically as element content). The presence of >> the element itself (as opposed to its content) would have no >> processing semantics except in a processing step that resolves links. >> In essence, the link element, when resolved, becomes a container for a >> cache, which can be re-resolved at any time (e.g., by the RFC editor). > > > As mentioned before, we already have this for IETF documents through the > seriesInfo information. This can be used to pull in an updated > reference anytime without having to rely on an inclusion mechanism. As soon as the RFC editor has put something in place that lets him easily update the references in a document, I see no need to keep an extra copy. I don't, however, think it's right to build the ID submission tool so that it forces this change on the RFC editor. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 18 16:42:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15325; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8m7w-0000Zx-5k; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:48:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8m0o-0005bR-OS; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:40:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8lx6-0004o0-Dv for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:37:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15054 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8m2u-0000Tm-HN for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:43:01 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8IKaswN080635; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:36:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8IKarwd080634; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:36:53 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:36:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion In-Reply-To: <414C1477.9070900@levkowetz.com> Message-ID: <20040918142047.X77545@measurement-factory.com> References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> <414BF623.9050500@gmx.de> <414C1477.9070900@levkowetz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: Julian Reschke , Carsten Bormann , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >>> The more obvious way would be to keep both in one document >> >> As mentioned before, we already have this for IETF documents >> through the seriesInfo information. > > As soon as the RFC editor has put something in place that lets him > easily update the references in a document, I see no need to keep an > extra copy. I don't, however, think it's right to build the ID > submission tool so that it forces this change on the RFC editor. I agree with all of the above. If RFC Editor does not adjust their tools, they can get the sources they need (with includes) directly from authors, just like they are doing today. In that case, we did not help the RFC Editor, but we helped many other IETFers and the Secretariat, so we are making good progress. We force no changes on the RFC Editor. I suggest that we leave the choice to the RFC Editor. They know their needs and resources. They can ask us for advice if needed. Let's trust them to make the right decision: 1) keep the current status quo; get sources from authors 2) ask Secretariat to store a hidden copy with 3) adjust RFC Editor tools to use references Can we declare "leave the choice to the RFC Editor" as rough consensus? Are there any serious flaws in that plan? Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 18 17:55:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18315; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8nH0-0001jy-GS; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8n9B-0001qS-F6; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:53:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C8n6s-0001Bn-0N for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:51:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18055 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.114]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8nCg-0001dA-Sl for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:57:11 -0400 Received: by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 7E1BC37E76; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:50:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6D137E44; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:50:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F2737E45; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:50:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8n6F-0000qW-9o; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0200 Message-ID: <414CADA5.6060101@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:50:29 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: [Tools-discuss] use of processing instrucrtion References: <200409171759.i8HHxjde013916@bulk.resource.org> <414B300F.6050800@levkowetz.com> <20040917141114.J10641@measurement-factory.com> <414BF623.9050500@gmx.de> <414C1477.9070900@levkowetz.com> <20040918142047.X77545@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040918142047.X77545@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , Carsten Bormann , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > > I agree with all of the above. > > If RFC Editor does not adjust their tools, they can get the sources they > need (with includes) directly from authors, just like they are doing > today. In that case, we did not help the RFC Editor, but we helped many > other IETFers and the Secretariat, so we are making good progress. We > force no changes on the RFC Editor. > > I suggest that we leave the choice to the RFC Editor. They know their > needs and resources. They can ask us for advice if needed. Let's trust > them to make the right decision: > > 1) keep the current status quo; get sources from authors > > 2) ask Secretariat to store a hidden copy with > > 3) adjust RFC Editor tools to use references > > Can we declare "leave the choice to the RFC Editor" as rough consensus? > Are there any serious flaws in that plan? In order to leave the choice with the RFC editor, the tool should keep a copy with available. If we can agree on that, fine :-) Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 21 18:18:21 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07598; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9t4J-0008Pp-0T; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:25:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9srA-0000qL-Ow; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:11:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9sWh-0006RF-Q7 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:50:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03041 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9sd8-0007Mq-Jr for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:56:59 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8LLoHwN052650 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:50:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8LLoHKX052649; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:50:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:50:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040921154222.S34560@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: <20040921154222.E34560@measurement-factory.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Subject: [Tools-discuss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 As far as I know, the -01 version of the draft reflects all comments received so far (except for Henrik's list of idnit checkpoints). See Change Log appendix for details. Thanks to everybody who reviewed the draft! If your comment does not seem to be reflected or is reflected incorrectly, please let me know. The biggest to-do items, IMO, are factoring out specific implementation requirements and documenting their priorities. Resolving and polishing XXXs is also important. I am not sure where requirements for draft archive manipulation and rendering belong. They are currently not documented anywhere. I may post about that separately. Thank you, Alex. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset Author(s) : A. Rousskov Filename : draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2004-9-21 This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset facilitating Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 22 00:42:30 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA29303; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9z48-0005jK-IH; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:49:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9ywY-0005bs-3I; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:41:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9yvM-0005Jg-Ea for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:40:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA29039 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9z1p-0005eW-C2 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:46:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8M4dKE27349; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:39:22 +0300 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:39:19 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt In-Reply-To: <20040921154222.S34560@measurement-factory.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: > As far as I know, the -01 version of the draft reflects all comments > received so far (except for Henrik's list of idnit checkpoints). See > Change Log appendix for details. Thanks to everybody who reviewed the > draft! If your comment does not seem to be reflected or is reflected > incorrectly, please let me know. > > The biggest to-do items, IMO, are factoring out specific > implementation requirements and documenting their priorities. > Resolving and polishing XXXs is also important. I think this incorporates the comments reasonably well.. of course, the difficult thing is to get those XXXs resolved in an agreeable manner :) One comment on the new text: Does the author request this submission to be published (i.e., forwarded to IESG or RFC Editor for review and publication as an RFC or BCP)? The author would tick a corresponding checkbox on the web interface to set the "publication requested" flag. [[XXX32: clarify that for-publication submissions may be subjected to more mandatory checks than other drafts. --Alex]][[XXX45: Currently, it is the WG Chair that submits "for publication" drafts to the AD. This meta-data flag would let authors do it. The intent is to enable more strict checks before the submission, to improve the quality of the drafts submitted for IESG review. Bad idea? --Alex]] .. I think it would be a bad idea to allow authors to submit drafts for the consideration of the AD just like that. Further, existing documents (not just the new ones) can be pushed to the ADs as well (e.g., if there are no comments during WG last call of a document, so that the doc doesn't require to be revised), so this couldn't be the only way to deal with "request to advance" requests either. However, I would see no problem in the authors selecting a knob like "yes, I intend to get this draft published, so I want the feedback on whether it passes the form nits or not". I would see no objection to having a tool which would automate the "request to advance" -messages (which could also check e.g., the form nits similar to above), but that would probably be a slightly different, if a lot simpler, tool. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 22 01:12:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01848; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9zXI-0006Ra-N2; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:19:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9zNY-0002yV-Or; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:09:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9zBG-0008U0-Rq for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:56:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00768 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9zHl-00066f-FV for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:03:22 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8M4uawN071389; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:56:36 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8M4uaBc071388; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:56:36 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:56:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040921224548.V67153@measurement-factory.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > I think it would be a bad idea to allow authors to submit drafts > for the consideration of the AD just like that. Agreed. > ... > However, I would see no problem in the authors selecting a knob like > "yes, I intend to get this draft published, so I want the feedback on > whether it passes the form nits or not". I think we do not need a knob for this. The Check page should always contain that information (i.e., a list of warnings that are likely to become errors and require new revisions if the draft is sent to IESG). > I would see no objection to having a tool which would automate the > "request to advance" -messages (which could also check e.g., the > form nits similar to above), but that would probably be a slightly > different, if a lot simpler, tool. Yes, I am leaning towards the same solution. The "request to advance" tool would be used by WG Chairs (where applicable) and will only apply to posted drafts. It will strongly advise against (if not refuse) requesting to advance a draft that fails certain checks. Question: Is this something worth documenting and automating? On one hand, compared to posting drafts, advancing is a relatively rare event. On the other hand, we may be able to save IESG and RFC Editor considerable amount of resources if we check drafts before they are advanced, explicitly show detectable bugs, and strongly encourage authors to fix them first. Opinions? Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 22 03:20:36 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08657; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CA1X9-0008Ox-2z; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:27:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CA1PW-0004oJ-Ig; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:19:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CA1Mg-00049w-MC for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:16:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08390 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net ([81.228.10.107]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CA1TD-0008Jw-GJ for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:23:19 -0400 Received: by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 519E838807; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.183]) by av9-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F872387EF; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp2-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229CE37E50; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CA1M5-0006pu-B5; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:57 +0200 Message-ID: <415126AC.8020506@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:56 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt References: <20040921224548.V67153@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040921224548.V67153@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pekka Savola , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: [snip] >> I would see no objection to having a tool which would automate the >> "request to advance" -messages (which could also check e.g., the form >> nits similar to above), but that would probably be a slightly >> different, if a lot simpler, tool. > > > Yes, I am leaning towards the same solution. The "request to advance" > tool would be used by WG Chairs (where applicable) and will only apply > to posted drafts. It will strongly advise against (if not refuse) > requesting to advance a draft that fails certain checks. > > Question: Is this something worth documenting and automating? On one > hand, compared to posting drafts, advancing is a relatively rare event. > On the other hand, we may be able to save IESG and RFC Editor > considerable amount of resources if we check drafts before they are > advanced, explicitly show detectable bugs, and strongly encourage > authors to fix them first. Sounds like a nice tool proposal to me :-) I'll enter it as proposed on the web site. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 23 08:57:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09484; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CATGr-0007K2-PS; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:04:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAT8s-0004MJ-Cw; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAT3O-0003iM-CN for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:50:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08884 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CATAA-0007A6-L9 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:57:31 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8NCoRwN046945; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:50:28 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8NCoRBc046944; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:50:27 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:50:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040923064648.K45317@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9e5c23589e6cce06555030c0194c9e2b Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt (fwd) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fcb459c204557d9509ce9c1b55d771f1 -- Forwarding to tools-discuss at Brian's request. Lots of good comments here. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:18:41 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter To: rousskov@measurement-factory.com Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt Alex, I've lost track of where this is to be discussed, so please forward these comments as appropriate. Generally, this is good stuff. > 6. Overall toolset operation ... > Check page: Displays draft interpretation and validation results > (Section 9). Draft rendering preview may also be given on this > page. After reviewing draft interpretation and validation > results, the submitter selects one of the following three actions > (a) auto-post draft "as is" now; (b) correct extracted meta-data > and submit draft to Secretariat for manual posting later; or (c) > cancel submission. Automated posting option may not be available > for drafts that failed validation. I found (b) hard to understand as a summary until I read the later description. So I suggest (b) make manual corrections and submit draft... Another point: if the submitter does *nothing*, i.e. none of a), b) or c) the whole thing should time out and be garbage collected. > 7. Upload page > > To upload the draft, the submitter goes to a well-known URL on IETF > web site. There, two exclusive options are available. First, the > draft text can be uploaded using HTML file input form. This form > provides input fields to upload plain text format of the draft and > all other formats allowed by IETF draft publication rules. At the > time of writing, these formats are: XML (RFC 2629), Postscript, and > PDF. I see nothing in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt to suggest that PDF is acceptable for I-Ds. It is an option for RFCs I believe, but it would be an addition to current documented procedures to support PDF format I-Ds. I believe you should be simpler here. Insist on an ASCII document as the one that is preprocessed (whether it is raw .txt or XML). If the submitter also submits a Postcript and/or PDF, just treat that as an opaque file. Come back to this issue in Version 2 of the tool. > 8.3 Extraction > > Each stored draft format is interpreted to extract draft meta-data. > [[XXX10: mention somewhere that initially, some formats will not be > fully or at all interpreted, but eventually either the format needs > to be interpreted or it should not be accepted for automated posting > --Alex]]. See previous comment. If you follow the existing id-guidelines by *requiring* a .txt or XML base document, I think it is OK to take the additional formats on trust and upload them as opaque files. However, I'd like to repeat a suggestion I made a year or two ago. Make it compulsory that even a pure .txt draft should include a short preamble in XML2RFC format with all the required metadata. It should be easy to provide a template for this (or even offer the template on the upload page). > > The following meta-data is extracted by the draft interpreter. > > identifier: Also known as draft "filename". For example, > draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13. > > revision: A non-negative integer also known as draft version. For > example, 13 in draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13. > > name: Common part of all draft identifiers for all revisions of the > same draft. For example, draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission in > draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13. > > WG ID: IETF working group identifier. WG value is empty for > individual drafts not meant to be related to a known WG and for > non-IETF drafts. For example, "tools" in > "draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13" and "opes" in > "draft-rousskov-opes-ocp-00". [[XXX42: Is it possible that an > individual draft without a WG name component in its name is > adopted as a WG draft without changing draft name? See also "WG > flag" concerns. --Alex]] Yes, this is a choice that a WG can make. But see my next comment... > > WG flag: True for IETF WG drafts and false for all other drafts. For > example, "true" for "draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-13". > [[XXX40: Currently, there is no reliable way to extract WG ID from > the draft, because some WGs (e.g., OSPF) tell the Secretariat that > a draft-surname-wg-foo-05 draft is actually a WG document. I > would encourage a policy change to require this-is-a-WG-draft > information to be embedded in WG drafts. --Pekka Savola]][[XXX41: > A simple policy would be the best, but, in theory, the toolset can > also consult some IETF database to see if a > draft-surname-wg-foo-05 draft is actually a WG draft. --Alex]] This can be resolved robustly as follows. The tool should *only* recognize as WG drafts those that follow the draf-ietf-wgname-* convention - don't add complexity. But if a WG chooses to "cheat" by not renaming a draft, that is their right and their problem - it's simply out of band as far as the tool is concerned. No policy change is needed, and the WG will suffer from any resulting confusion. Their problem, not ours. > > > title: A human-friendly draft title. For example, the title of this > draft is "Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset" > > authors: A list of all draft authors. For each author, their first > name, last name, and e-mail are extracted. > > abstract: Draft abstract text. > > submission date: Draft submission date. > > expiration date: Draft expiration date. One possible addition is mailing list: email address of list for discussion of this draft Enforcing that *would* be a minor policy change, but a very useful one IMHO (e.g. see this draft itself). > > [[XXX11: number of pages and size would depend on format version; > they probably should not (do not need to) be specified manually; do > we need to extract them at this stage? --Alex]]. The byte count can obviously be generated automatically later. Here's a heresy: let's just drop pagination and page counts from I-Ds. They are basically useless anyway, and the RFC Editor always repaginates at the end of the process. > 8.4.1 Absolute requirements ... > > 3. A Working Group draft must be approved by the corresponding > working group. by a Chair or Secretary of the corresponding working group. ... > 6. An IETF IPR statement must appear in the draft text. [[XXX16: > add the applicable parts of RFC 2026, 3667 and 3668 - this is > mostly a matter of checking the presence of boilerplate text. > --Henrik]] Do you mean that the I-D boilerplate must be present, or that the entire IPR and Copyright text must be present, or both? > > [[XXX17: Today, -00 WG drafts are approved by the Chair after > submission, not prior to submission. See "Comparison with current > procedures" section. --Alex]] Not true. WG Chairs may pre-approve drafts, and are indeed requested to do so at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_61.html > 8.4.2 Desireable features ... > [[XXX33: What to do when two versions are submitted with a > suspiciously small gap? How small should the gap be to warrant > warnings/actions? --Stanislav]] I'd say that to prevent both DOS attacks and human error, anything less than 48 hours should be kicked over for manual handling. > 9.1 External meta-data > > TBD: Input fields for meta-data that must be supplied by submitter > and cannot be extracted from the draft: > > Which author is the submitter? [[XXX30: with the exception for > Secretariat manual submission? No. Secretariat submits on behalf > of one of the authors. --Alex]][[XXX31: are there any situations > when a draft is submitted by somebody other than author and not on > explicit authors behalf? What happens to IPR "by submitting this > draft I ..." statement then? --Alex]]; It isn't "I" any more - the current version of the bolierplate commits all the authors. > Does the author request this submission to be published (i.e., > forwarded to IESG or RFC Editor for review and publication as an > RFC or BCP)? The author would tick a corresponding checkbox on the > web interface to set the "publication requested" flag. [[XXX32: > clarify that for-publication submissions may be subjected to more > mandatory checks than other drafts. --Alex]][[XXX45: Currently, > it is the WG Chair that submits "for publication" drafts to the > AD. This meta-data flag would let authors do it. The intent is > to enable more strict checks before the submission, to improve the > quality of the drafts submitted for IESG review. Bad idea? > --Alex] Yes, bad idea. I believe that for WG drafts, the WG Chairs or Secretary need to be the gatekeeper - document authors cannot assert that there is WG consensus. But for individual submissions, we need to decide whether it is the author or the lucky AD who does it. The tool probably needs to be designed flexibly in this area. > List of drafts obsoleted by this draft. This is useful to make > obsoleted drafts invisible. [[XXX43: Can non -00 draft obsolete > other drafts? Or is this reserved for -00 versions for some > reason? Is this reserved for WG drafts only? --Alex]]. [[XXX44: > This may open a bigger can of worms than we want to deal with, as > it allows anybody to "kill" any other draft. The toolset would > probably need a manual check by Secretariat and/or approvals from > both(?) WG Chairs. A lot of work for something relatively rare? > --Alex]]. IMHO this is too complex and would be a luxury in Version 1. Maybe for Version 2... > 10. Post Now action ... > [[XXX26: should responding to e-mail be > also supported (as an alternative to going back to the web page to > cut-and-paste the token)? --Alex]] Yes please, this can be very handy when intermittently connected. > 14. Bypassing the toolset > > A buggy toolset or unusual circumstances may force a submitter to > submit draft to Secretariat for manual processing. This can be done > by choosing the "manual posting" route supported by the toolset or, > as a last resort, by e-mailing the draft directly to Secretariat. In > either case, an informal "cover letter" has to accompany the draft. > The letter should explain why the automated interface cannot be used. This mechanism will also apply during the phase-in period for the tool, when only a subset of people are using it. > > When processing manual submissions, the Secretariat may be able to > use the toolset. A Manual Validation page similar to the default > Validation page provides authenticated Secretariat staff with > editable meta-data fields and a "force posting" action. The forced > posting action accepts meta-data fields "as is" and proceeds with the > regular posting algorithm [[XXX22: Should we document the details > even though this page is for internal Secretariat use? > --Alex]] Yes. There is no reason for it to be secret. > [[XXX23: Should forced posting script obtain authors consent > or do we want to be able to bypass that as well? --Alex]] I think we need the flexibility - situations can arise where an author is on sabbatical or medical leave or otherwise unavailable for a long period. > 15. E-mail interface ... > off-line mode: A submitter can do all the manual work required to > submit a draft while being disconnected from the network. E-mail > client actually submits the draft when connectivity is regained. > [[XXX39: This advantage would be significantly reduced if we > require submitter e-mail verification for each draft submission. > Such verification would mean that valid drafts cannot be posted > automatically when connectivity is regained -- sending an e-mail > just starts the process. --Alex]] Nevertheless, I think the verification emails are required - otherwise we are very exposed to bogons. > Appendix A. Comparison with current procedures > > TBD: This section summarizes major differences between draft > submission approach currently in use by IETF and the proposed > toolset, including violations of the current IETF rules. > > o Approval for version -00 of a WG draft. [[XXX28: Clearly point > out that we propose to require that working group chairs post an > approval *before* a -00 is submitted - there is no option to > submit a -00 draft and have it sit and wait for the Chair's > approval. This is a change from current procedure, and may need > approval from outside the tools team. --Henrik]][[XXX29: I am not > sure the current procedure is required by IETF rules. The order > does not seem to be codified anywhere so changing current practice > should not be that difficult. The key is to convince IETF that > the change is worth it long-term. --Alex]] Non-issue. The WG decision is by definition before the draft is posted, and as noted above it is existing practice for WG Chairs to pre-approve postings. > > o The toolset allows posting of draft renderings additional to plain > text as well as XML draft sources. Currently, the Secretariat > only accepts plain text submissions of drafts. Well, the I-D guidelines already allow PS, you are only adding PDF. However, as suggested above, I would treat these as opaque files (or simply not handle them in Version 1). Regards Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 24 18:43:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28524; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAytr-0006sh-8L; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:50:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAygu-0000Hw-Bz; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:37:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAyei-0008L6-EG for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:35:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28162 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAylj-0006kH-MV for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:42:27 -0400 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i8OMYS6Y008122; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id i8OMYScF008121; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200409242234.i8OMYScF008121@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20040923064648.K45317@measurement-factory.com> To: Alex Rousskov Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > However, I'd like to repeat a suggestion I made a year or two ago. > Make it compulsory that even a pure .txt draft should include a short > preamble in XML2RFC format with all the required metadata. It should > be easy to provide a template for this (or even offer the template > on the upload page). This would be *really* helpful for a whole bunch of applications. Carl _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 24 18:56:32 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29263; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAz6Y-00075R-Cy; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:03:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAytG-00022P-PV; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:50:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAyo7-00014h-Ex for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:44:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28572 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAyvB-0006tm-5B for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:52:10 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8OMij0U058424; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:44:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8OMijOa058423; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:44:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:44:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Carl Malamud Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200409242234.i8OMYScF008121@bulk.resource.org> Message-ID: <20040924163843.L39163@measurement-factory.com> References: <200409242234.i8OMYScF008121@bulk.resource.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Carl Malamud wrote: >> However, I'd like to repeat a suggestion I made a year or two ago. >> Make it compulsory that even a pure .txt draft should include a >> short preamble in XML2RFC format with all the required metadata. It >> should be easy to provide a template for this (or even offer the >> template on the upload page). > > This would be *really* helpful for a whole bunch of applications. I agree that having meta-data would be very helpful, but disagree that the right way to do it is to add XML blobs to plain text drafts. It would be an ugly hack, and we can do much better, without much extra effort, and while being more user-friendly. The first part of the solution I prefer (currently documented in the ID Submission draft) is to create a meta-data file/record/whatever at the time of the submission. That can be done by interpreting XML sources (if available), text sources, and/or user input. The second part is to make that metadata available as a part of the draft rendering/access interface. I hope we will document that soon. It could be as simple as accessing an "/archive/draftname/metadata.xml" URL. Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 24 18:56:58 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29298; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAz6x-000765-4Y; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:04:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAyxO-0002sP-DI; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:54:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAyre-0001eK-Bm for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28800 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAyyj-0006wa-FY for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:55:49 -0400 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i8OMlw6Y009582; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id i8OMlwwt009581; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:47:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200409242247.i8OMlwwt009581@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20040924163843.L39163@measurement-factory.com> To: Alex Rousskov Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The first part of the solution I prefer (currently documented in the > ID Submission draft) is to create a meta-data file/record/whatever at > the time of the submission. That can be done by interpreting XML > sources (if available), text sources, and/or user input. > That would be fine with me. If you can make that conform to a tag, that would be even better, making it compatible with existing citation databases. Carl _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Sep 25 03:45:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09956; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CB7M5-0006cP-2w; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:52:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CB7Bk-0006z5-AK; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:41:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CB78T-0006DF-K3 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:38:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09725 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.113]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CB7Fd-0006Wz-AT for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:45:49 -0400 Received: by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 2E56A37EDA; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net [81.228.11.164]) by av7-1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB2A37E47; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (h195n1fls311o871.telia.com [213.64.174.195]) by smtp3-2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C62137E50; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CB77w-0006Xz-DL; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:37:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4155204E.6060303@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:37:50 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt (fwd) References: <200409242234.i8OMYScF008121@bulk.resource.org> <20040924163843.L39163@measurement-factory.com> In-Reply-To: <20040924163843.L39163@measurement-factory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carl Malamud , tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Carl Malamud wrote: > >>> However, I'd like to repeat a suggestion I made a year or two ago. >>> Make it compulsory that even a pure .txt draft should include a short >>> preamble in XML2RFC format with all the required metadata. It should >>> be easy to provide a template for this (or even offer the template on >>> the upload page). >> >> >> This would be *really* helpful for a whole bunch of applications. > > > I agree that having meta-data would be very helpful, but disagree that > the right way to do it is to add XML blobs to plain text drafts. It > would be an ugly hack, and we can do much better, without much extra > effort, and while being more user-friendly. > > The first part of the solution I prefer (currently documented in the ID > Submission draft) is to create a meta-data file/record/whatever at the > time of the submission. That can be done by interpreting XML sources (if > available), text sources, and/or user input. > > The second part is to make that metadata available as a part of the > draft rendering/access interface. I hope we will document that soon. It > could be as simple as accessing an "/archive/draftname/metadata.xml" URL. I agree that this is the right way to go, both with respect to extracting information from the draft and generating meta-information, and having this available in xml format (maybe both conforming to format and some superset of that), and finally to make the metadata generally available. I note though that although we can document the latter at will, we will require buy-in from leadership and secretariat. I'm starting the process of getting that by putting together a proposed priority list, and making some contacts. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 29 19:27:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01515; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCnzE-00064J-0q; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:35:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCnJx-00011T-Ci; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:53:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCn7c-0003wD-1I for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:40:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26385 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCnFj-0004iz-K7 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:48:52 -0400 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8TMeOJ2064102; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:40:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i8TMeKsk064101; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:40:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:40:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040929162826.K44764@measurement-factory.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Cc: Brian E Carpenter Subject: [Tools-discuss] draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-02 X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-02.txt The just-announced ID Submission draft version 02 is meant to reflect all comments received so far. Please let me know if your comments were not accurately reflected. An attempt to resolve a couple of big issues have been made. Most tool requirements are now explicitly marked. Please see the Change Log at the end of the draft for details. The TOOLS team hopes to resolve remaining issues (most of which are marked with XXXs) within the next week or so. Additional input on those is very welcome. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss