From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 04 04:23:28 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTFAG-00064i-0w; Wed, 04 May 2005 04:23:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTFAC-00062l-Lr for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 04:23:25 -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 EAA04944 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 04:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTFOF-0006I6-H5 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 04:37:56 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.81]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j448NDJl159930 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 08:23:13 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j448NC17140326 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 10:23:12 +0200 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j448NCDu003591 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 10:23:12 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j448NBUQ003563; Wed, 4 May 2005 10:23:11 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-248-129.de.ibm.com [9.145.248.129]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA99878; Wed, 4 May 2005 10:23:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4278866D.7050909@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 10:23:09 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 848ed35f2a4fc0638fa89629cb640f48 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 Trying to catch up after several days lost in meetings. I will also go back to a couple of earlier messages to see if I have anything to add. But I think it's probably time for you to make a -09 with the latest set of comments included and then I will put it into IESG evaluation. Some comments below. Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > on 2005-04-27 5:47 pm Alex Rousskov said the following: > >>On Wed, 2005/04/27 (MDT), wrote: >> >> >>>As the text now reads, it is most easily understood as if >>>the submitter is required to manually and personally solicit an approval >>>from the WG Chair. Even if we don't cover the requirements on >>>automation, >>>of this, we should not state or assume that this should be a manual >>>process left up to the individual; but rather make it clear that there >>>will be an automatic solicitation if requested, but the requirements of >>>that is outside the scope of this draft. >> >>I would be happy to specify that we expect this process to be >>automated. Sorry if I was supposed to do that change earlier. > > > I thought we touched on this, but it could have been just something > that passed my mind. Anyway, what about: > > 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for > WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval > is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter > and asks whether an explicit approval from the WG (R126/b) should be > solicited. If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the > Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state > until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, > the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). > The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside > the scope of this document.' The ID-tracker already sends a lot of automatic emails when certain events occur, so I actually don't see why you think this is hard to specify or implement- the WG chairs are well known and the message will always be the same. I really don't think users will understand why they have to send it manually. I would prefer the last sentence to be more explicit. If what you mean is the following why not say it: Initially the submitter will be responsible for soliciting WG Chair approval. Automation of this solicitation is for future study. > >>>>I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is >>>>increasing >>>>the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for >>>>those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the >>>>current list "as is" for now. >>>> >>>>The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", >>>>"rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems >>>>to me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. >>>>Would that be acceptable? >>> >>>That is also a special treatment. If we want to have no special >>>treatment for those, it implies that they are handled like personal >>>submissions. >> >>Yes, it is special treatment which seems to be required to prevent >>random folks from posting IAB, IESG, etc. drafts. >> >> >>>If we want to have special treatment for them, why not handle them as WG >>>drafts? Seems like a more fruitful special treatment than to >>>specifically disallow them. Then you'd have a list of people who could >>>approve posting of -00 versions of such drafts (the 'WG Chairs', from >>>the tools viewpoint). >> >>I was simply not sure IETF has enough backend metadata to identify >>all IAB people, all IESG people, all IRTF people, etc., that can >>approve 00 drafts. However, since we are not documenting how to >>automate this step, I do agree with you. The Toolset should just >>treat all those 4 special strings as WG names. I will adjust the >>draft text accordingly (most likely by extending the WGN definition). > > > Sounds good to me. Brian? Sure. If it can be handled by extending the general mechanism, that's good. > > >>If the list is not >> >> "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor", "irtf" >> >>then please let me know the correct values. > > > Looks good to me. Brian? I believe so. In any case I assume this will be data-driven anyway, not hard-coded. > > >>>I'd support moving this to /c, or alternatively (maybe a better >>>alternative) >>>creating a new stage between the current /a and /b, in which we'd place >>>the XML submission requirements. >> >>I think having four stages would be doing too much micromanagement >>when some of us are sure that (b) and (c) requirements are going to >>change with (a) experience. The current stage semantics is: >> >> a) A minimum set of features for the first public version of >> the Toolset that can handle most "common" drafts submitted >> today. >> >> b) A comprehensive set of features that we think needs to be >> implemented soon. >> >> c) A vague long-term Toolset roadmap. >> >>If IESG thinks that the email interface is not needed any time soon, >>let's place it in (c). If IESG thinks that email interface is >>needed soon, let's instruct the implementors that XML has priority >>over email interface but leave both in stage b. (A good implementation >>team will make multiple releases per stage. A team of more than one >>person should work on more than one feature at the same time.) > > > Ok. Then I suggest we add a hint about multiple releases and preferred > order of implementation of XML support relative to mail support. > > >>Can we ask IESG to make this choice? > > > I guess we should have a proposal on the table - could be as simple as > my suggestion above. It's best to make a definite proposal. If the IESG dislikes it, they will tell you. If you leave options, the IESG is guaranteed to ask for a new draft. Brian > > Henrik > > >>Thank you, >> >>Alex. >>P.S. I do not think that IESG should make all design choices because >>the Tools team is supposed to represent IETF needs, not just IESG >>needs. However, when the Toolset team is not sure what the right >>thing to do is, and when the Toolset team preferences meet significant >>and broad resistance, IESG should step in. > > > Yes, I guess - but if we can reach a consensus based on the new input > that is also good. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 04 06:01:05 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTGgj-0007RF-Rf; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:01:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTGgi-0007RA-Fj for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:01:04 -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 GAA13676 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 06:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTGul-0000EN-OV for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:15:37 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.233]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j448fD4G179026 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 08:41:13 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j448fC8N053604 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 09:41:12 +0100 Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j448f8HC007298 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 09:41:08 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j448f4ac007212; Wed, 4 May 2005 09:41:06 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-248-129.de.ibm.com [9.145.248.129]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA51318; Wed, 4 May 2005 10:41:04 +0200 Message-ID: <42788A9E.3020304@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 10:41:02 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4bb0e9e1ca9d18125bc841b2d8d77e24 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 small responses below... Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 2005/04/26 (MDT), wrote: > >> XML submission is in stage "b". I'm concerned about that because I really >> think that we have a large majority of authors who are using XML already. > > > And yet, XML has no official status in IETF. Correct. But the submission format is an operational matter - what is clear as a matter of principle is that the posting and archive format is plain text. > It seems prudent to start with > plain text, a format that is (and will be) officially required and then > expand into modern formats. Note that XML users can still submit their > generated plain text formats; we are not excluding them in the first stage. > > The intent was to produce the simplest version that automates at least 80% > of submissions before moving into improvements. I suspect first stage > feedback > will demand new features that may be more important than XML support. > > As an alternative, we could support only XML-based submissions in stage A, > but I doubt it is a good idea because it will upset more people and will > delay first stage implementation. Indeed not. Maybe what we need is a general remark that it isn't *forbidden* to include /b features in the /a release, if that turns to be practical from a coding point of view. > >> A related point is that I would always give metadata extraction from XML >> priority, because it is unambiguous and non-heuristic. > > > There is no "priority" concept because if the metadata from varios formats > does not match, the draft cannot be autoposted. In that case, the > implementors may choose to use XML-extracted metadata for manual posting. > Should we add that as a hint or requirement? A hint I think. It would be a bit strange in reality if the txt is generated from xml yet has inconsistent metadata, so the problem is rather theoretical. > >> I don't think I saw any mention of 1id-guidelines. The intent is to >> be consistent with that, I think. > > > I agree. Specific requirements match some of the suggestions in > 1id-guidelines. Did we miss any important ones? Adding an informative > reference to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt is a good > idea. OK >> Now some specifics: >> >>> 8.4 Extraction >> >> ... >> >>> version: A non-negative integer number representing draft version >>> number (also known as draft revision number). For example, the >>> number seven in draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-07. >> >> >> To be picky, you need to specify that it's two digits including a >> possible leading zero, > > > Leading zeros is a rendering aspect, not a part of the version number > definition (one does not do math with leading zeros). We have a vague > rule R22 that requires draft IDs to be "correct". We can add an explicit > version rendering requirement there. OK >> and you need to specify whether values >99 >> are allowed. (On DOS grounds, I'd say not.) > > > We can add that rule if draft file name format (two digits for version) > is more important than supporting large number of draft revisions. There > are already so many things dependent on draft filenames that enforcing > a broken design may be better than slightly improving it :-(. My concern is that the programmer of the tool needs to know whether the version number is a bounded value, if only because of writing the rendering code. If s/he assumes there are only two digits, there is a well known bug by which draft-foobar-101.txt would be rendered as -10 or -01 or -**. So we need a rule. I don't really care what it is (>99 allowed and rendered or >99 illegal). > >>> 8.5.1 Absolute requirements >> >> ... >> >>> 5. The creation of the draft version could have happened 48 hours or >>> less before submission time. >> >> >> I don't understand that sentence. Do you mean that creation MUST NOT >> be older than 48 hours before submission, and if so why do you care? >> I can well imagine preparing a draft several days before submission. >> Technically, as an IBM employee, I am obliged to get external publication >> clearance for the text, which could take a week or two. > > > This requirement needs to be reworded and it probably needs a formal Rnnn > marker. You guessed the intent correctly. The Toolset should care because > the Toolset cannot alter draft text, extracts draft creation date from the > text, and all extracted dates must match reality and IETF rules. > > If you use XML source and do not specify the exact date there, then in > many cases, a two week clearance delay will not matter. In other cases, > you will need to edit the XML source or regenerate the plain text format > before submitting a draft that was created two weeks ago. > > We can relax this requirement by stating that draft creation date can > be anything in the past. This is likely to upset Secretariat (because > their tools do not work that way) and will require an additional rule > saying that already-expired drafts cannot be autoposted. Also, it would > make claims "My draft has been posted for 2 months already!" impossible > to verify by reading the posted draft text. The latter makes me think > that it would be wrong to allow such flexibility. Hmm. I guess it's logical but I still find 48 hours too short. Generate a draft Friday afternoon, post it on Monday morning, and you get an error. I think this will annoy people. > >>> 6. The draft version expiration date obeys IETF draft expiration >>> rules. >> >> >> 1id-guidelines isn't precise about date formats. Posting with only >> the month names for both publication date and expiration date has long >> been tolerated. (The draft is physically expired 185 days after the >> date of posting, but we have never required precision in the >> text.) > > > I do not see a contradiction or problem here. The Toolset can/should > accept dates "with only the month names" if those are valid from IETF > point of view. Sure, it just needs to be stated. > >>> 8.5.2 Desirable features >>> Violating any of the following requirements does not prevent the >>> submitter from auto-posting the draft (R24/a). >> >> >> Does that mean the user gets a warning via the Check page prior >> to deciding to auto-post? > > > Yes. We should add a sentence to clarify this. OK > >>> 3. If both XML and plain text formats are submitted, the submitted >>> plain text matches what can be generated based on submitted XML >>> (R146/b). >> >> >> I couldn't find it stated anywhere whether submitting *only* >> XML is allowed. (Opinion: I think it should be.) > > > It is allowed by R69/b: > > It is an error to submit a draft which has neither plain text nor XML > sources format (R68/a). XML source is acceptable without > accompanying plain text only if the Toolset successfully generates a > draft in plain text format from the XML source, as a part of the > processing step documented below (R69/b). OK, that was not so easy to find. > >> >>> 8.5.3 DoS thresholds >> >> ... >> >>> >>> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ >>> | category | versions/day | MB/day | >>> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ >>> | drafts with the same draft name | 3 | 5 | >> >> ...............................................seems high > > > Two would be an absolute minimum to allow for quick bug fixes. Since we are > talking about detecting DoS attacks, 3 versions/day does not sound like > a DoS to me. I guess. > >>> | drafts with the same submitter | 5 | 10 | >>> | WGN drafts with the same WG ID | 10 | 15 | >> >> ...............................................these seem low > > > I would be happy to raise these. 10 and 30? I think that is safer, in the days just before the cutoff. > >>> | all drafts | 300 | 150 | >>> +----------------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ >> >> >> As noted above, you might consider version # >99 as a DOS threshold too. > > > Submitting a single version (#100) is not a DoS (by definition), IMO. > Please see above for >99 rule comments. OK (end of comments in this mail) Brian > >>> 8.5.4 WG approval >> >> ... >> >>> If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for >>> WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval >>> is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter >>> and asks whether the submitter wishes to solicit an explicit approval >>> from the WG (R126/b). If the submitter decides to go ahead with >>> solicitation, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG >>> approval" state until the approval is available (R127/b). Otherwise, >>> the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). >> >> >> Doesn't the tool automatically generate email to the WG chairs asking for >> approval? That would be much more error-proof than waiting for the >> user to compose email. > > > We decided to leave that feature outside of this draft. I do agree that > automating this process would be desirable, but there are many > requirements related to approval handling, and we agreed (after a long > debate) that documenting all those requirements in this draft would be > a mistake. > > I still think that was the right decision. There should be a separate > comprehensive draft documenting how approvals can be automated instead > of including one or two isolated requirements in the submission draft. > >> And surely the final error message should be >> "user declined to request WG approval"? > > > Unless the user has actually requested WG approval and it was denied. > The curret wording is more precise (less assuming), I think, but I am > happy to change that to whatever. The exact error message content is > not meant to be normative anyway (I just did not want to introduce > "error identifiers" of some sort and used quoted text for that). > >>> 9.1 External meta-data >> >> ... >> >>> For any draft, an IESG member (R122/c). >> >> >> This raised a red flag. In 1id-guidelines there is a third class of >> draft names: >> >> >> Other >> >> A string identifying an IETF-related body, such as "iab", >> "iesg", "rfc-editor". >> >> (and one "other" case that is missed here is draft-irtf-). >> >> Firstly, it isn't just any IESG member that needs the privilege - >> at least the IAB Exec Director and the RFC Editor will need it, for >> those special strings. >> >> Secondly, the current practice of IRTF drafts being treated as individual >> submissions is quite likely to change. In the extreme case, *everything* >> that applies to draft-ietf-WGN would apply by analogy to draft-irtf-RGN. >> I'm not saying that *will* happen, but it *might* happen. So flexibility >> in the tool design is needed there. > > > I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is increasing > the list of special people that Toolset recognizes. Because of the "for > those special strings" complexity, I would suggest that we leave the > current list "as is" for now. > > The second issue is treating "draft-X", where X is "iab", "iesg", > "rfc-editor" (with a dash, yuck!), or "irtf" in a special way. It seems to > me that, for now, those drafts should not be allowed for autoposting. > Would that be acceptable? > >>> 16. Email interface >>> The Toolset should have an email interface for automated posting of >>> valid drafts (R55/b). >> >> >> Personal opinion: this should be R55/c. It's *way* behind XML submission, >> in any case. > > > Personally, I agreee. Unfortunately for us, too many folks wanted to email > drafts so much that we included this in stage b. Personally, I would be > happy to change that to /c if that is what IESG wants us to do. > > I will wait for yours and other Tools members feedback before changing > anything. > > Alex. > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 04 06:27:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTH5s-0006FU-Lt; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:27:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTGmO-0000Lf-NB for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:06:56 -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 GAA14113 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 06:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pne-smtpout1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTH0S-0000NG-SI for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 06:21:29 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213.64.173.70) by pne-smtpout1-sn1.fre.skanova.net (7.1.026.7) id 42650A3B003EA661; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:06:30 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTGlx-0000Us-Je; Wed, 04 May 2005 12:06:30 +0200 Message-ID: <42789EA3.2080108@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 12:06:27 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> <4278866D.7050909@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4278866D.7050909@zurich.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 May 2005 06:27:03 -0400 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 on 2005-05-04 10:23 Brian E Carpenter said the following: [...] >> I thought we touched on this, but it could have been just something >> that passed my mind. Anyway, what about: >> >> 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for >> WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval >> is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter >> and asks whether an explicit approval from the WG (R126/b) should be >> solicited. If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the >> Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state >> until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, >> the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). >> The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside >> the scope of this document.' > > The ID-tracker already sends a lot of automatic emails when certain > events occur, so I actually don't see why you think this is hard to > specify or implement- the WG chairs are well known and the message > will always be the same. I really don't think users will understand > why they have to send it manually. I would prefer the last sentence > to be more explicit. If what you mean is the following why not say it: > > Initially the submitter will be responsible for soliciting WG Chair > approval. Automation of this solicitation is for future study. What I intended to say was basically "The tool will solicit WG Chair approval. The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside the scope of this document." So what about: 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter and asks whether the tools should solicit an approval from the WG (R126/b). If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside the scope of this document.' [...] >>If the list is not >>> >>> "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor", "irtf" >>> >>>then please let me know the correct values. >> >> >> Looks good to me. Brian? > > I believe so. In any case I assume this will be data-driven anyway, > not hard-coded. Right. [...] >> >> >> Ok. Then I suggest we add a hint about multiple releases and preferred >> order of implementation of XML support relative to mail support. >> >> >>>Can we ask IESG to make this choice? >> >> >> I guess we should have a proposal on the table - could be as simple as >> my suggestion above. > > It's best to make a definite proposal. If the IESG dislikes it, they > will tell you. If you leave options, the IESG is guaranteed > to ask for a new draft. Ok. Alex, could you propose a hint about multiple releases and preferred order of implementation for stage b) and c) ? Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 04 07:30:12 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTI4y-0005nV-Ls; Wed, 04 May 2005 07:30:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTI4x-0005nQ-Ub for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 07:30:11 -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 HAA22132 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 07:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTIJ1-0002VO-Hj for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 07:44:45 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.129]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j44BTw78340058 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 11:29:58 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j44BTudT135312 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:29:57 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j44BTubV020318 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:29:56 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j44BTuwJ020315; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:29:56 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-248-129.de.ibm.com [9.145.248.129]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA86410; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:29:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4278B232.2040400@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:29:54 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <4267E4A9.9060904@levkowetz.com> <4268A948.70508@zurich.ibm.com> <4268DEB9.9000307@levkowetz.com> <4268EEA3.5050807@zurich.ibm.com> <426E5460.1080709@zurich.ibm.com> <426F338B.3040102@levkowetz.com> <426FBEB1.8040009@levkowetz.com> <4278866D.7050909@zurich.ibm.com> <42789EA3.2080108@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <42789EA3.2080108@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 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 wfm Brian Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > on 2005-05-04 10:23 Brian E Carpenter said the following: > [...] > >>>I thought we touched on this, but it could have been just something >>>that passed my mind. Anyway, what about: >>> >>> 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for >>> WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval >>> is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter >>> and asks whether an explicit approval from the WG (R126/b) should be >>> solicited. If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the >>> Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state >>> until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, >>> the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). >>> The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside >>> the scope of this document.' >> >>The ID-tracker already sends a lot of automatic emails when certain >>events occur, so I actually don't see why you think this is hard to >>specify or implement- the WG chairs are well known and the message >>will always be the same. I really don't think users will understand >>why they have to send it manually. I would prefer the last sentence >>to be more explicit. If what you mean is the following why not say it: >> >> Initially the submitter will be responsible for soliciting WG Chair >> approval. Automation of this solicitation is for future study. > > > What I intended to say was basically "The tool will solicit WG Chair > approval. The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside the scope of this document." > > So what about: > > 'If (a) no approval exists, (b) the Toolset supports the "waiting for > WG approval" feature, and (c) the draft can be posted if WG approval > is received, then the Toolset explains the situation to the submitter > and asks whether the tools should solicit an approval from the WG > (R126/b). If the submitter requests solicitation for approval, the > Toolset puts the submission into a "waiting for WG approval" state > until the approval is received (R127/b). Otherwise, > the Toolset records a "no WG approval is expected" error (R138/b). > The details and mechanics of solicitation for WG approval is outside > the scope of this document.' > > [...] > >>>If the list is not >>> >>>> "iab", "iesg", "rfc-editor", "irtf" >>>> >>>>then please let me know the correct values. >>> >>> >>>Looks good to me. Brian? >> >>I believe so. In any case I assume this will be data-driven anyway, >>not hard-coded. > > > Right. > > > [...] > >>> >>>Ok. Then I suggest we add a hint about multiple releases and preferred >>>order of implementation of XML support relative to mail support. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Can we ask IESG to make this choice? >>> >>> >>>I guess we should have a proposal on the table - could be as simple as >>>my suggestion above. >> >>It's best to make a definite proposal. If the IESG dislikes it, they >>will tell you. If you leave options, the IESG is guaranteed >>to ask for a new draft. > > > Ok. Alex, could you propose a hint about multiple releases and preferred > order of implementation for stage b) and c) ? > > > Henrik > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 05 18:55:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTpFI-00083Q-4p; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:55:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTpFG-00082F-0y for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:55:02 -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 SAA03392 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTpLR-0006lw-PW for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 19:01:27 -0400 Received: from [128.9.176.225] (c2-vpn08.isi.edu [128.9.176.225]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j45Mj3625517; Thu, 5 May 2005 15:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <427AA1E6.6040307@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:44:54 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Subject: [Tools-discuss] update of ID on MSWord template available - v02 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="===============1122843158==" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --===============1122843158== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0939E074915B8B7B9C18F98A" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0939E074915B8B7B9C18F98A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, all, I've been working on a revision to RFC3285 and an update to the associated template for writing Internet Drafts in Word. Feedback appreciated. Joe The change log is at: www.isi.edu/touch/tools/word-template-changes.txt Until otherwise available, the doc is at: www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/draft-touch-msword-template-v2.0-02.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Network Working Group J. Touch Internet Draft USC/ISI Expires: November 2005 May 5, 2005 Version 2.0 Microsoft Word Template for Creating Internet Drafts and RFCs draft-touch-msword-template-v2.0-02.txt ... Abstract This document describes the properties and use of a revised Microsoft Word template (.dot) for writing Internet Drafts and RFCs. It updates the initial template described in RFC 3285 to more fully support Word's outline modes and to be easier to use. This template can be direct-printed and direct-viewed, where either is line-for-line identical with RFC Editor-compliant ASCII output. This version is intended as an update to RFC3285. The most recent version of this template and post-processing scripts are available at http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools --------------enig0939E074915B8B7B9C18F98A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCeqHsE5f5cImnZrsRAkRiAKDZEWaE2tWuVyFFiMbkO7Eha3PLWQCdH4bt KolP23jXcwYSh6tE9eJM1Yw= =VH5R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0939E074915B8B7B9C18F98A-- --===============1122843158== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --===============1122843158==-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 11 04:36:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVmi2-0004ck-4F; Wed, 11 May 2005 04:36:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVcEj-0004n3-Sf for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 17:25:54 -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 RAA22810 for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 17:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVcU3-0000jD-V4 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 17:41:48 -0400 Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com (frontend2.internal [10.202.2.151]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30949C8D83B for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 17:25:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Sasl-enc: jZ3jvsPRndM6s8bzbX66HYppChc5YmMktKbxS3B7be3s 1115760338 Received: from [192.168.2.98] (adsl-67-123-76-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [67.123.76.21]) by frontend2.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF6C57034F; Tue, 10 May 2005 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:25:46 -0700 From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -8.0 (--------) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:36:48 -0400 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.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 Sorry for the late comments, but it seems another round is in process anyway...apologies for any duplicates. Having given this a couple reads, most of my concerns were addressed. Compression is IMO a silly feature, but its implementation is optional, so that's OK. (And I wonder if HTTP 1.1 doesn't support compressed POSTs.) I still wonder if anyone has done a survey (formal or anecdotal guesstimate) to determine what format drafts are created in (i.e. source format) these days. Even though the RFC Editors reportedly* don't use nroff/troff any more, it seems quite popular, and justifiably preferred** by some users who've tried both. I suppose they can continue to submit drafts the old way, if they're just a vocal small minority. *http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00280.html **http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00301.html Does the draft take into account that it is probably much easier for the Secretariat to convert a document from one format to another (especially given appropriate instructions or better yet standard procedure regarding use of existing tools) than it is to compare two documents to confirm that they are not substantially different? Or am I mistaken? Should one of the validation steps be approval (a good score from) an anti-spam system such as SpamAssassin? I guess this can be a feature added later if it turns out it's needed. I'd bet it will be. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 11 06:30:51 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVoUN-0000ba-Ug; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVoUM-0000bV-Bw for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:50 -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 GAA20402 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVojq-0006Hh-6U for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:46:51 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4BAUb78231368 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:30:38 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4BAUbgF243620 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:37 +0100 Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4BAUbFZ013651 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:37 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4BAUaxl013641; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:36 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-161.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.161]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA92368; Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4281DEC3.6030107@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:27 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Elvey Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 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 Yes, we did a rough survey, and XML was the preferred format by a substantial majority, with a decent minority still using nroff, and most of the rest assumed to be using Word. BTW team, when can I expect a -09 draft to submit to the IESG? Progress would be good. Brian Matthew Elvey wrote: > Sorry for the late comments, but it seems another round is in process > anyway...apologies for any duplicates. > > Having given this a couple reads, most of my concerns were addressed. > Compression is IMO a silly feature, but its implementation is optional, > so that's OK. (And I wonder if HTTP 1.1 doesn't support compressed POSTs.) > > I still wonder if anyone has done a survey (formal or anecdotal > guesstimate) to determine what format drafts are created in (i.e. source > format) these days. Even though the RFC Editors reportedly* don't use > nroff/troff any more, it seems quite popular, and justifiably > preferred** by some users who've tried both. I suppose they can > continue to submit drafts the old way, if they're just a vocal small > minority. > > *http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00280.html > **http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00301.html > > Does the draft take into account that it is probably much easier for the > Secretariat to convert a document from one format to another (especially > given appropriate instructions or better yet standard procedure > regarding use of existing tools) than it is to compare two documents to > confirm that they are not substantially different? Or am I mistaken? > > Should one of the validation steps be approval (a good score from) an > anti-spam system such as SpamAssassin? I guess this can be a feature > added later if it turns out it's needed. I'd bet it will be. > > -- > Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 11 10:52:51 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVsZv-0001pl-0X; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:52:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DVsZt-0001pg-EQ for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:52:49 -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 KAA10536 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:52:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVspQ-0002zR-9m for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:08:53 -0400 Received: from pail.measurement-factory.com (nat.measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.3]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j4BEqb3a053691; Wed, 11 May 2005 08:52:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:51:15 -0600 To: "Matthew Elvey" , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> From: "Alex Rousskov" Organization: The Measurement Factory Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (FreeBSD, build 1095) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: 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 On Tue, 2005/05/10 (MDT), wrote: > Does the draft take into account that it is probably much easier for the > Secretariat to convert a document from one format to another (especially > given appropriate instructions or better yet standard procedure > regarding use of existing tools) than it is to compare two documents to > confirm that they are not substantially different? Or am I mistaken? Secretariat is not and will not be manipulating submitted drafts, including format conversion. While it may be easy to convert from one format into another (and the draft requires such conversion from XML sources), the danger of autoconversion is that the result does not match the author expectation. For example, whenever a new version of xml2rfc is out, there is often at least one complaint that the new plain text output differs from the old plain text output, and the difference breaks something important in the author's draft. I believe it is better to have in imperfect auto-comparison (and risk a few rogue drafts to be published) than an imperfect conversion (and risk many corrupted drafts to be published). The current Toolset requirements reflect that belief and give the submitter a choice: let the Toolset to auto-convert from submitted XML to plain text or let the Toolset auto-compare submitted XML and submitted plain text. Personally, I think I will use the latter mode more often. > Should one of the validation steps be approval (a good score from) an > anti-spam system such as SpamAssassin? I guess this can be a feature > added later if it turns out it's needed. I'd bet it will be. I do not see why an email draft submission that SpamAssassin marks as spam but that also passes all IETF-specific checks should be rejected. For example, I doubt spam will come with IETF-compliant IPR disclosures any time soon. However, I agree that adding spam or other filters to the email interface would be possible if such filters are needed. 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 Wed May 11 19:00:21 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DW0Bh-0000PI-M4; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:00:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DW0Bf-0000PD-JA for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:00:19 -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 TAA07288 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.196]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DW0RG-0007gK-8r for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:16:27 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so150330rng for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 16:00:16 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WdsoqFcY/H/Rqv5tU14ki/25mfGo47yQbdi6trpsqBfbOAKAleT/E0ec/Qx3I1KaFaqV7CNKdDt5QpFbji0uxd+44W3KNZOtu7keYBNtF91HqI18zIQfURAPtvQC/qYrMqEaVZo/ViVH/HSwhsu3yJqcgpqXTDWhUxmL2xuLUjw= Received: by 10.38.90.51 with SMTP id n51mr489917rnb; Wed, 11 May 2005 16:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.10.77 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 16:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:00:16 -0700 From: Bill Fenner To: Matthew Elvey Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt In-Reply-To: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Fenner 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 On 5/10/05, Matthew Elvey wrote: > Even though the RFC Editors reportedly* don't use > nroff/troff any more The antecedent of "it" in the email is not "nroff sources" but is "my nroff sources". The RFC Editor still uses nroff, they just (reportedly) don't use nroff sources that people submit (mostly because people like to use macros and the RFC Editor doesn't trust macros as different versions of the macros can create different results, and they want to be able to recreate the exact bits of a given RFC). Bill _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 13 11:07:09 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWbkr-0002x9-IS; Fri, 13 May 2005 11:07:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWbkp-0002x3-FF for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 11:07:07 -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 LAA23239 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 11:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWc0k-0002nL-WD for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 11:23:36 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4DF6utV260426 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:06:56 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4DF6uN9284226 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:06:56 +0100 Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4DF6tEV010446 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:06:56 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4DF6tgj010429 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:06:55 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-130-128.de.ibm.com [9.145.130.128]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA52060 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 17:06:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4284C28D.9080205@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:06:53 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org References: <200505122000.QAA28525@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200505122000.QAA28525@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.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 OK, any reason that I can't put this into IESG processing now? Brian Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Requirements for an IETF Draft Submission Toolset > Author(s) : A. Rousskov > Filename : draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt > Pages : 43 > Date : 2005-5-12 > > This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset to > facilitate Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 13 14:14:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWefk-0002hl-Pc; Fri, 13 May 2005 14:14:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWdSD-0006pQ-08 for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 12:56:01 -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 MAA03607 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 12:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.101]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWdi9-0007Xu-Hz for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 13:12:31 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213-64-173-70-o871.telia.com [213.64.173.70]) by smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEF037E5A; Fri, 13 May 2005 18:55:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DWdRr-0000qP-MN; Fri, 13 May 2005 18:55:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4284DC0A.6000108@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:55:38 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt References: <200505122000.QAA28525@ietf.org> <4284C28D.9080205@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4284C28D.9080205@zurich.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:14:02 -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 All comments received to date should be handled with this version, so putting it into IESG processing seems like a good thing :-) Henrik On 2005-05-13 17:06 Brian E Carpenter said the following: > OK, any reason that I can't put this into IESG processing now? > > Brian > > Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> >> >> Title : Requirements for an IETF Draft Submission Toolset >> Author(s) : A. Rousskov >> Filename : draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt >> Pages : 43 >> Date : 2005-5-12 >> >> This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset to >> facilitate Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt >> >> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >> i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. >> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >> to change your subscription settings. >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >> type "cd internet-drafts" and then >> "get draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". >> >> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> >> >> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >> >> Send a message to: >> mailserv@ietf.org. >> In the body type: >> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". >> >> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers >> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >> how to manipulate these messages. >> >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. >> >> _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat May 14 04:41:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWsDW-0007BS-Go; Sat, 14 May 2005 04:41:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWkJa-0003jI-AB for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:15:34 -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 UAA24644 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWkZb-0003pM-Qn for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:32:08 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213-64-173-70-o871.telia.com [213.64.173.70]) by smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF8238260 for ; Sat, 14 May 2005 02:15:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DWkJI-0007zx-Nj for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 02:15:16 +0200 Message-ID: <42854314.5020400@levkowetz.com> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:15:16 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tools Team Discussion Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070608020706020501000502" 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: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 May 2005 04:41:49 -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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070608020706020501000502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarding this to the list - for some reason it had been auto-discarded by Mailman. Matthew Elvey wrote on Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:51 -0700: > On 5/11/05 7:51 AM, Alex Rousskov sent forth electrons to convey: > >> I believe it is better to have in imperfect auto-comparison (and risk >> a few rogue drafts to be published) than an imperfect conversion >> (and risk many corrupted drafts to be published). > > I'm convinced. > >> >> For example, I doubt spam will come with IETF-compliant IPR disclosures >> any time soon. > > Spammers already write custom software to steal IP space, sign up for > mailing list, IM, email and wiki accounts, etc. But I agree - it > (SpamAssassin integration) doesn't need to be in the current spec. > >> >> However, I agree that adding spam or other filters to the email interface >> would be possible if such filters are needed. > > It's not just the email interface I'd protect. > > Bill: Sorry for the confusion. > > Brian: Thanks. (I'll certainly be using XML in my next I-D - with > emacs' PSGML unless I get feedback suggesting otherwise.) > --------------070608020706020501000502 Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-mac-type="0"; x-mac-creator="0"; name="(null).eml" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="(null).eml" Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWHaQ-0008UF-JF for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 13:35:02 -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 NAA14356 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 13:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWHqB-0007f4-5D for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 13:51:20 -0400 Received: from frontend3.messagingengine.com (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9B0C8E2C0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 13:34:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Sasl-enc: YN0Am1EIZVyIPjsb04on/+pp/ia3Xv/ggqrKCtsOM/jR 1115919292 Received: from [192.168.19.155] (gateway.swissnex.org [216.38.156.54]) by frontend3.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E4A88; Thu, 12 May 2005 13:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <428393BB.809@elvey.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:51 -0700 From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt References: <428126DA.20207@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -8.0 (--------) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/11/05 7:51 AM, Alex Rousskov sent forth electrons to convey: > I believe it is better to have in imperfect auto-comparison (and risk > a few rogue drafts to be published) than an imperfect conversion > (and risk many corrupted drafts to be published). I'm convinced. > > For example, I doubt spam will come with IETF-compliant IPR disclosures > any time soon. Spammers already write custom software to steal IP space, sign up for mailing list, IM, email and wiki accounts, etc. But I agree - it (SpamAssassin integration) doesn't need to be in the current spec. > > However, I agree that adding spam or other filters to the email interface > would be possible if such filters are needed. It's not just the email interface I'd protect. Bill: Sorry for the confusion. Brian: Thanks. (I'll certainly be using XML in my next I-D - with emacs' PSGML unless I get feedback suggesting otherwise.) --------------070608020706020501000502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss --------------070608020706020501000502-- From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 17 07:36:43 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DY0NP-0007wz-G2; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:36:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DY0NO-0007wu-ME for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:36:42 -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 HAA10519 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DY0e8-00007i-7S for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:54:00 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4HBaW78331846 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 11:36:32 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4HBaWH8273092 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 12:36:32 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4HBaW7T000802 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 12:36:32 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4HBaWXa000789; Tue, 17 May 2005 12:36:32 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-18.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.18]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA65088; Tue, 17 May 2005 13:36:31 +0200 Message-ID: <4289D73F.7060008@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:36:31 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt References: <200505122000.QAA28525@ietf.org> <4284C28D.9080205@zurich.ibm.com> <4284DC0A.6000108@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4284DC0A.6000108@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 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 OK, I launched the ballot process. It should be on the IESG agenda for May 26. Let the comments and Discusses flow :-) https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12281&rfc_flag=0 Brian Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > All comments received to date should be handled with this version, so > putting it into IESG processing seems like a good thing :-) > > Henrik > > On 2005-05-13 17:06 Brian E Carpenter said the following: > >>OK, any reason that I can't put this into IESG processing now? >> >> Brian >> >>Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >>>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>> >>> >>> Title : Requirements for an IETF Draft Submission Toolset >>> Author(s) : A. Rousskov >>> Filename : draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt >>> Pages : 43 >>> Date : 2005-5-12 >>> >>>This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset to >>> facilitate Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting. >>> >>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt >>> >>>To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >>>i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. >>>You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >>>to change your subscription settings. >>> >>> >>>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >>>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >>>type "cd internet-drafts" and then >>> "get draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". >>> >>>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >>>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >>> >>>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >>> >>>Send a message to: >>> mailserv@ietf.org. >>>In the body type: >>> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt". >>> >>>NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >>> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers >>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >>> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >>> how to manipulate these messages. >>> >>> >>>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>>Internet-Draft. >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 17 15:38:03 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DY7tD-0005gB-Ez; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:38:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DY7kJ-0003LP-VR for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:28:52 -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 PAA00043 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.92]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DY816-0001sH-3B for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:46:14 -0400 Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (213-64-173-70-o871.telia.com [213.64.173.70]) by smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D17380B6; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:28:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DY7k4-00015c-NE; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:28:36 +0200 Message-ID: <428A45E4.2000206@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:28:36 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt References: <200505122000.QAA28525@ietf.org> <4284C28D.9080205@zurich.ibm.com> <4284DC0A.6000108@levkowetz.com> <4289D73F.7060008@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4289D73F.7060008@zurich.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:38:01 -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 Ok, that's good! Henrik On 2005-05-17 13:36 Brian E Carpenter said the following: > OK, I launched the ballot process. It should be on the IESG > agenda for May 26. Let the comments and Discusses flow :-) > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12281&rfc_flag=0 > > Brian > > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> All comments received to date should be handled with this version, so >> putting it into IESG processing seems like a good thing :-) >> >> Henrik >> _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss