From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Nov 3 14:25:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC9828C0CE for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:25:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQ+r+syW97UW for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8823A67A2 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-94-254-85-163.na.cust.bahnhof.se ([94.254.85.163]:62271) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N5RoT-0002uj-HV; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <4AF0ADCB.6030905@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:25:15 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman References: <64EAA346-81BC-47C0-9CEB-7371BDA3FA45@lilacglade.org> In-Reply-To: <64EAA346-81BC-47C0-9CEB-7371BDA3FA45@lilacglade.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.254.85.163 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mrw@lilacglade.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:09:26 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: Hui Deng , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Access to Issue Tracker for MIF X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:25:01 -0000 Hi Margaret, The short answer to your question is to point you to the following page, but I've added some briefer excerpts from that page inline: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/wiki/IetfSpecificFeatures On 2009-11-03 17:15 Margaret Wasserman said the following: > Hi Tools Folks, > > How would I get access to add issues to the issue tracker for MIF WG > documents? Go to the MIF issue tracker, (follow the link 'Issues' from the WG status page on the tools server; http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/); log in (using the tools username (your email address) and the tools password) and add away. > We currently have two WG documents that I would like to track, but we > will have more coming. So, I'd like to know how to set it up for the > documents we have now, as well as how to add further documents as they > are adopted. The issue tracker is automatically updated so that active documents are listed under 'components'. > Also, who can access the issue tracker? Can I give access to the > editors of the documents, as well as to the WG chairs (me and Hui Deng)? By default, anybody can enter issues; which seems to work fine in the WGs who are actively using the trackers. If this is unacceptable, the WG chairs can log in and use the admin interface to Trac in order to limit who can create and/or change issues. This and more is, as mentioned above, covered in the 'IetfSpecificFeatures' page which is part of the Wiki which also comes with the issue tracker: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/wiki/IetfSpecificFeatures The Wiki start page (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/wiki) as installed gives some general information about Trac, and then points you on to the IetfSpecificFeatures page. Regards, Henrik From mrw@lilacglade.org Tue Nov 3 08:14:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773BB3A68E3 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:14:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axPHhwLiRYWa for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E31A3A65A6 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0cze1d0070xGWP85AgFJtU; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:15:18 +0000 Received: from [10.2.0.20] ([69.33.111.74]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0gF31d00R1cMU3H3YgF61D; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:15:15 +0000 Message-Id: <64EAA346-81BC-47C0-9CEB-7371BDA3FA45@lilacglade.org> From: Margaret Wasserman To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:15:02 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:40:25 -0800 Cc: Hui Deng Subject: [Tools-discuss] Access to Issue Tracker for MIF X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:14:57 -0000 Hi Tools Folks, How would I get access to add issues to the issue tracker for MIF WG documents? We currently have two WG documents that I would like to track, but we will have more coming. So, I'd like to know how to set it up for the documents we have now, as well as how to add further documents as they are adopted. Also, who can access the issue tracker? Can I give access to the editors of the documents, as well as to the WG chairs (me and Hui Deng)? Thanks, Margaret From hagens@ISI.EDU Tue Nov 10 17:47:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F0728C24F for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:47:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDI5kIMHIz+W for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337E128C247 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [133.93.24.94] (host-24-94.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.24.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nAB1kbVi006559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:46:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <30b660a20910302039u4fcf489fk9cc893c898dd1d6b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AEAB112.8050005@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4AEB379A.3050407@gmail.com> <4AEB639C.4040804@gmail.com> <30b660a20910301532pf1f94b1t1d3114af9919686c@mail.gmail.com> <4AEB818F.4030205@gmail.com> <30b660a20910302039u4fcf489fk9cc893c898dd1d6b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <47F176FE-2B2A-477B-80D8-E2E8A92B7E44@isi.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Alice Hagens Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:45:23 +0900 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mark_Davis_=E2=98=95?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-MailScanner-ID: nAB1kbVi006559 X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: hagens@isi.edu Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" , "Phillips, Addison" , Randy Presuhn , Alexey Melnikov , "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J._D=FCrst?=" , Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] BCP 47 not updated? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:47:11 -0000 FYI, http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt has been reordered so =20 that it contains RFC 5646 then RFC 4647. I believe http://=20 tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 will reflect the rfc-editor.org file once =20 it is remade. Thank you. RFC Editor/ah On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Mark Davis =E2=98=95 wrote: > Thanks; glad to hear there is a reason behind it. > > Mark > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 17:15, Brian E Carpenter =20 > wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I assume you mean requests to the RFC Editor, since that's > where the concatentation originates. I assume that their procedure > just concatenates the files in numerical order. > > I suspect that this will have to wait now until the RFC publication > service has been migrated over to the new contractor, in a few > months. I doubt that ISI will be touching their procedures again. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 2009-10-31 11:32, Mark Davis =E2=98=95 wrote: > > For me, both http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt and > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 show the same contents, and both =20= > correctly > > include 5646 and 4647. > > > > However, and they both *still* show the RFCs in the wrong order: =20 > 5646 is far > > and away the most important one, and is necessary for =20 > understanding 4647, > > but 4647 comes first in BCP 47. Despite requests, that still =20 > hasn't changed. > > > > Mark > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 15:07, Brian E Carpenter < > > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> It's updated on the tools server at > >> http://[2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]/html/bcp47 > >> > >> Maybe you are seeing a cached copy? > >> > >> I also see it updated on 208.66.40.242 and 64.170.98.42 > >> > >> The third A record is 194.146.105.14, and that one 404's > >> on MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from =20 > "194.146.105.14" claiming to be MailScanner warning: numerical =20 > links are often malicious: http://194.146.105.14/html/bcp47, looks =20 > like a faulty redirect. > >> > >> Regards > >> Brian Carpenter > >> > >> On 2009-10-31 08:12, Phillips, Addison wrote: > >>> The RFC Editor has it correctly, but the tools page (the link =20 > Martin > >> sent, which is the text marked up with HTML links and such, at > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 ) is not updated. > >>> Addison > >>> > >>> Addison Phillips > >>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126 > >>> > >>> Internationalization is not a feature. > >>> It is an architecture. > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:00 PM > >>>> To: "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" > >>>> Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org; Randy Presuhn; Mark Davis; Phillips, > >>>> Addison; Alexey Melnikov > >>>> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] BCP 47 not updated? > >>>> > >>>> On my screen today it contains 4647 followed by 5646, which is > >>>> correct and matches the RFC Editor site > >>>> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt) > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Brian Carpenter > >>>> > >>>> On 2009-10-30 22:25, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: > >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 contains RFC 4646, when it > >>>> should be > >>>>> RFC 5646 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646). I know it's a > >>>> very > >>>>> special case (one BCP consisting of two RFCs), but it would =20 > still > >>>> be > >>>>> very nice if it were updated. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks and regards, Martin. (LTRU co-chair) > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Nov 10 20:51:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EB03A6942 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:51:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCqTAyHJu7TM for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from c.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D2D3A67AF for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-17-3.meeting.ietf.org ([133.93.17.3]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N85Bn-0001uj-Rw for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:52:16 +0000 Message-ID: <4AFA42FE.1090602@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:52:14 +0000 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Tools Discuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Tools-discuss] Retrieving submitted xml2rfc source X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:51:54 -0000 Hi. Is there a public way to retrieve an xml2rfc source for a draft that was submitted? proximal cause|: I forgot to bring along the last version of the xml2rfc source to the meeting and needed to edit it. I submitted it along with the txt but can't find a public way to get it back. Regards, Elwyn From tony@att.com Tue Nov 10 21:27:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1990128C266 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:27:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJjMLO4PoZCx for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:27:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242A93A6826 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:27:32 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1257917278!21655406!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25] Received: (qmail 29972 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2009 05:27:58 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Nov 2009 05:27:58 -0000 Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAB5RwPF024096 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:27:58 -0600 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAB5RsMk024019 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:27:54 -0600 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAB5RsxY001530 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:27:54 -0600 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAB5RpqA001512 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:27:51 -0600 Received: from [135.70.13.3] (vpn-135-70-13-3.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.13.3]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20091111052750gw10014qfee> (Authid: tony); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:27:50 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.13.3] Message-ID: <4AFA4B54.3040304@att.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:27:48 -0500 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elwyn Davies References: <4AFA42FE.1090602@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4AFA42FE.1090602@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF Tools Discuss Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Retrieving submitted xml2rfc source X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:27:33 -0000 Uploaded xml files are always stored along with the .txt files in ftp://ftp.ietf.org's/internet-drafts Tony Hansen tony@att.com Elwyn Davies wrote: > Is there a public way to retrieve an xml2rfc source for a draft that was > submitted? > > proximal cause|: I forgot to bring along the last version of the xml2rfc > source to the meeting and needed to edit it. I submitted it along with > the txt but can't find a public way to get it back. From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Wed Nov 18 11:20:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400E43A6808 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qp8HPC7cKZKX for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-mail-01.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-01.bluehost.com [69.89.21.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DF3403A6938 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 27692 invoked by uid 0); 18 Nov 2009 19:20:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by outboundproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2009 19:20:01 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=IjWMGD3HNoJa/VkBVMj3JwHeUVy1KXWickPm18rdrLMeWGYfXej3AfLcmHlc7qJqje0Be66pdvJcfpgyv39I7cwCb4A/qNfTiKQLYLxUr0ZFZ8ltuMgq+eSDEVWd/1cR; Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.48.106]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NAq4O-00042S-T4 for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:20:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:20:45 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Subject: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:20:04 -0000 what's the max length for a WG short-form name, e.g. "speermint", "mediactrl" ? The longest I see presently in use are 9 chars, which will work for our needs; although I'm curious about the actual present length limit. thanks, =JeffH From Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com Wed Nov 18 11:50:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471113A6805 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:50:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsWSP4EANKo6 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7973A67E1 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id nAIJom8F008665; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:50:52 +0200 Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:50:52 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:50:46 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:50:42 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.106]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:50:38 +0100 From: To: , Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:50:37 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? Thread-Index: AcpohCvOkzXdbXkzTqeMG08AE9xeuAAABwnQ Message-ID: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB774F30FE12EA@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> In-Reply-To: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2009 19:50:42.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[693D5AB0:01CA6888] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:50:58 -0000 Jeff Hodges wrote: > what's the max length for a WG short-form name, e.g. "speermint", > "mediactrl" ? >=20 > The longest I see presently in use are 9 chars, which will work for > our needs; although I'm curious about the actual present length > limit. Difficult to say. The database field used to be 12 characters, but at some point it was changed to 255 (don't know when exactly).=20 Not all of the code was updated, though -- e.g. the code I first checked (Django model for this database table) still had 12 (*). The datatracker main page search box has 10 (*) Despite earlier warnings about the pain it would cause, I took=20 a brief look at some *really* old (but still used by the secretariat) ColdFusion code, and found some places had 8, others 12. Given this, I think sticking to 8 (or perhaps 9) is going to be much less work :-) (*) filed as bug http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/332 Best regards, Pasi=20 From richard.barnes@gmail.com Wed Nov 18 11:55:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BBA28C0E5 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbD9eUP4SoCp for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47C43A684F for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so1630965bwz.29 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AIEE0Qa0c7VvV8k5LtEgr7g9obySuSgNSH0fs7lQgu4=; b=btImR4mTVhAf/ghdqgerpfzYqtcLPVRQBDX6yu3i23uZdJdb8KSk8qIJDXQU+iywD4 zjKgupJbntW1aJzQh8WS3y4yV8RK/E5c0QcNpk1DISqWs2DFtoSTuw/3P1BOgSi8trfb bK+XKXDgfKoj6wdNhcHdm+aZc2G5xJkWLOJIw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FBWeA/oJkJviVj6k+Og2no4+rOaMy4pxh4xJ8DYaIMG+/5A7jRfgcELSZP0GcM82U+ JwAPavSFOfYOh3EoN3/lvZSqjZaomYr2dvGSvaczQ77rwGGJ0vh3ON5grXkYQSTiIgW0 npP9XiRk/aHcK9zTSTYF+cFPpVzBZqBB02pe4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.20.143 with SMTP id f15mr70257bkb.49.1258574151943; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> References: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:55:51 -0500 Message-ID: <88ac5c710911181155p3a14817ayefaa013ed2b8d843@mail.gmail.com> From: Richard Barnes To: "=JeffH" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325554c7e4007c70478aaa173 Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:55:57 -0000 --000325554c7e4007c70478aaa173 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 What sort of working group are you contemplating, Jeff? On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM, =JeffH wrote: > what's the max length for a WG short-form name, e.g. "speermint", > "mediactrl" ? > > The longest I see presently in use are 9 chars, which will work for our > needs; although I'm curious about the actual present length limit. > > thanks, > > =JeffH > _______________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > --000325554c7e4007c70478aaa173 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 What sort of working group are you contemplating, Jeff?


On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote:
what's the max length for a WG short-form name, e.g. "speermint", "mediactrl" ?

The longest I see presently in use are 9 chars, which will work for our needs; although I'm curious about the actual present length limit.

thanks,

=JeffH
_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

--000325554c7e4007c70478aaa173-- From spencer@wonderhamster.org Wed Nov 18 12:08:36 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4713A699C for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:08:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9y0WkbhJsW94 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11423A6805 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-76-182-230-135.tx.res.rr.com [76.182.230.135]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lxync-1ODpSz2Gyy-015uxu; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:08:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: , , References: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB774F30FE12EA@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:08:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+rSrMNDOadv6iobV92N6cRy3K1we0Wzw5svYm w7oTDvwvlrZUIbUFb9HUh4D6/FbyzjgfhWmviuZOLn8jHTIA6n SACoojGEt/AKNcLEUyUlR5GWp2HwjF8ugayoEBeLBE= Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:08:36 -0000 Heh. In yet another process BCP that we apparently ignore (in this case, RFC 2418): 2.2. Charter [deleted down to] Specifically, each charter consists of the following sections: Working group name A working group name should be reasonably descriptive or identifiable. Additionally, the group shall define an acronym (maximum 8 printable ASCII characters) to reference the group in the IETF directories, mailing lists, and general documents. This is why "softwire" was singular, IIRC - but that's the last conversation I remember about acronyms. Given that we already have names that are longer than 8 characters (including a WG I co-chair, although I wasn't participating when it was chartered), "8" is probably the wrong answer. Pasi, do you think the places where you saw an 8-character limit caused problems for 9-character names? I'm guessing that if no one has found a problem yet, the code just truncates longer names and works if no two names are identical for the first 8 characters ("speermint" and "speerminty-fresh" might have a problem), but I've never seen the ColdFusion code you're referring to. I hope this is helpful. Spencer >> what's the max length for a WG short-form name, e.g. "speermint", >> "mediactrl" ? >> >> The longest I see presently in use are 9 chars, which will work for >> our needs; although I'm curious about the actual present length >> limit. > > Difficult to say. The database field used to be 12 characters, > but at some point it was changed to 255 (don't know when exactly). > Not all of the code was updated, though -- e.g. the code I first > checked (Django model for this database table) still had 12 (*). > The datatracker main page search box has 10 (*) > > Despite earlier warnings about the pain it would cause, I took > a brief look at some *really* old (but still used by the secretariat) > ColdFusion code, and found some places had 8, others 12. > > Given this, I think sticking to 8 (or perhaps 9) is going > to be much less work :-) From Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com Wed Nov 18 12:13:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004DC3A67E1 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:13:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id my+Kx9TtqMeX for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A333A69D0 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id nAIKBQv2000771; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:12:59 -0600 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:12:40 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:12:40 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:12:34 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.106]) by nok-am1mhub-02.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:12:33 +0100 From: To: , , Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:12:32 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? Thread-Index: AcpoiuzvwJUpPFcoS4m+oG9K73ASlQAAEcwg Message-ID: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB774F30FE1303@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <4B04490D.1060405@KingsMountain.com> <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB774F30FE12EA@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2009 20:12:35.0168 (UTC) FILETIME=[77B69E00:01CA688B] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:13:04 -0000 Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Pasi, do you think the places where you saw an 8-character limit caused > problems for 9-character names?=20 Perhaps. I certainly would not recommend trying two names that are identical for the first 8 characters :-) Best regards, Pasi From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Wed Nov 18 12:44:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB213A67AB for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.336 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SD3hMg0i+O45 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-mail-311.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-311.bluehost.com [67.222.54.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2236D3A6A24 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18269 invoked by uid 0); 18 Nov 2009 20:44:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by outboundproxy6.bluehost.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2009 20:44:20 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=p5Sf6M6exTTCsZ7xQQabp3EoMosNOlXBhHmpQJqTrkVOn4rICMSIEaJ0KqavPSTIg3NjpCQAOLhIlMoE/vce8DGTASmScXi8/4SPWzR5A+incu+F+velUnOze5Wp6jOm; Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.48.106]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NArNz-0008HY-9j for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:44:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4B045CCF.1030100@KingsMountain.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:45:03 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Tools List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] max length for WG short-form (acronym) name? X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:44:23 -0000 thx Pasi & Spence for investigation and reminder wrt RFC2418. I'll suggest back to Lisa that we go with "httpstate" (9 chars) =JeffH