Subject: [datatracker-rqmts] Tracking things other than drafts in lists

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:07:32 -0800

Greetings again. At the meeting in Beijing, many people in the room 
expressed interest in being able to track things other than just drafts. 
However, there was also a desire to keep the first round of this work 
simple. I would like to address those two now and see what folks on this 
list think should be done.

Appendix A of the current draft lists the five non-draft things that I 
have heard requests to track:
	Tracking RFC Status Changes and Errata
	Tracking WG Charter Changes
	Tracking IANA Registry Changes
	Tracking Changes in the Liason Statement Directory
	Tracking Changes in Documents Outside the IETF Sphere
We can add as many or as few of them as we want to the first round of 
the tool.

I propose the following choices for the first round, although feel free 
to add your own:

a) None of the above: just track drafts

b) Add just "RFC Status Changes and Errata"

c) Add them all

In my mind, the logic behind (a) is "keep it as simple as possible", the 
logic behind (b) is "most IETFers care about RFC status and errata in 
their development work and their WG work", and the logic behind (c) is 
"this is all easy to do and people won't get confused if they have too 
many choices". You might have other reasons for preferring one over the 
others, or wanting some combination other than what is listed above.

Comments are welcome.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:45:01 -0500

I'll review the draft as soon as I can, but just to answer this
question for now:

> Appendix A of the current draft lists the five non-draft things that I have
> heard requests to track:
> We can add as many or as few of them as we want to the first round of the
> tool.

I support...

> b) Add just "RFC Status Changes and Errata"

My reasoning is that this should be part of tracking a document from
beginning to end.  You watch it as a draft, you continue watching as
it becomes an RFC, you see errata being posted, etc.

Also, what that says to me is that if I'm watching
draft-furbie-feedme-please, and that becomes RFC 6666, I should be
watching that, as well, without having to do it manually.  (Or perhaps
that should be an option when I start following it -- to specify
whether I want to keep following it as it's replaced by
draft-ietf-feedme-base-protocol and then by RFC 6666.)

Barry

---

From: Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:59:24 -0800

> draft-ietf-feedme-base-protocol and then by RFC 6666.)

I agree with Barry. I have implemented a protocol defined by an RFC. I
want to know anything that might affect my implementation.

I was not aware of errata for RFCs before I became a WG chair. I
imagine many other implementors are in the same boat.

Blake

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:24:28 -0800

Thank you to Barry and Blake for responding. Other folks are strongly 
encouraged to do the same! :-)

On 1/18/11 11:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> datatracker-rqmts mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/datatracker-rqmts
>
>
>