From housley@vigilsec.com Tue Mar 1 12:08:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95F43A6A2D; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:08:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, 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 96g2gk34V9Uk; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8113A6A16; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBF39A4726; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:10:32 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aS05sbG1M6fe; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-71-178-218-117.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.218.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7CA9A4736; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:10:30 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:09:55 -0500 Message-Id: <546F14E0-21CD-4234-84E3-9217776DA88B@vigilsec.com> To: IETF Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Subject: [datatracker-rqmts] draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:08:56 -0000 I want to call your attention to = draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns draft that was recently = posted. Thanks to Sandy, Michelle, and Alexa for putting it together. =20= Abstract This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC Editor state information into the Datatracker to provide the community with a unified tool to track the status of their document as it progresses from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC. Extending the Datatracker to hold document data from I-D version -00 to RFC allows for increased automation between the Datatracker, IANA, and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and potential delay. Therefore, this document also describes the requirements to make such automation possible. I would like people to take a look, and then post their comments to the = datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org mail list. Once these requirements are stable, we will be extending the datatracker = to address them. Thanks, Russ= From edj.etc@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 20:14:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89933A6B5D for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:14:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 58lf9ESXXbgx for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DAE3A6B5E for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so5442312vxg.31 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:15:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=dm8G2htdGhNtXGXWnPkICuow95c0XoNaCRLRTevQA8I=; b=iTiskuja7Hl6xiklYgkYPpIuLNe0zyBm4jA0z+sMp7tkqp9Ja3eYv+W29t+BaMFpOK 3LZzRpboYZ+FsqNKsP3yXQdrUch5Lj4osPU/ALFmLNqlmIuSRf0inLkOqzongJnOq9Lx 3an8UnPomUUCDnnyFdGz8CCVmobRuAtguDLkw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=tSy29dIh5Mz0386muH2ai3ivaK8exocv98QmPy2LB4wq1kQkDUrYIi6DjbXVDT+pJj koeBWSd7btS1/xx4V0xLncYeR1MKrK6r8GiLX466fedD7IaVKGWR1S2UtMoFXu47H2oX iXOad5sxMM3ro/V7Ix+Uxz35X+zMTgLgTOPN4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.169.161 with SMTP id af1mr12622103vdc.110.1299039311502; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.155.103 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:15:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:15:11 -0500 Message-ID: From: Ed Juskevicius To: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 04:14:07 -0000 Hi, I've just started reading the subject draft, and I have one meta question, Are most of the requirements coded as "should" items? I am asking because I can only find one instance of the word "shall" in the body of the document, and the only appearance of the word "must" in the copyright boilerplate text. Excellent starting point for discussion ! Best Regards, Ed Juskevicius. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 4 15:52:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABD83A6921; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:52:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.761, 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 5ti95svvBT+q; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4870:a30c:41::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AFC3A6A17; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p24NrggT051678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Message-ID: <4D717B86.80508@vpnc.org> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:53:42 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF discussion list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Subject: [datatracker-rqmts] Fwd: Last Call: (Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:52:37 -0000 Greetings. This is a shameless plug asking for input from the entire IETF community on this document which just entered IETF Last Call. There is a mailing list for the document at , and comments are welcome there as well. You can look through the archives to see some of the ideas that have already been discussed, but we are open to all discussion. --Paul Hoffman -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Last Call: (Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to Informational RFC Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:46:54 -0800 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce CC: <> The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting WG (genarea) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From rjsparks@nostrum.com Mon Mar 14 18:53:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2234B3A6973 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:53:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RED=0.001, 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 EPut+46733nZ for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9E33A68AB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-57-91-217.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.91.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2F1sQ9E072671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:54:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) From: Robert Sparks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5--275681064 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:54:25 -0500 References: <28D21647-E997-4A55-868C-E7C070ADB82D@nostrum.com> To: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.57.91.217 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: [datatracker-rqmts] Fwd: Last Call: (Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:53:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5--275681064 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resending to correct a mailing list name typo. Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Sparks > Date: March 14, 2011 4:46:03 PM CDT > To: Robert Sparks > Cc: ietf@ietf.org, datatracker-reqmts@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: = (Requirements for = Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to = Informational RFC >=20 > One additional thought - >=20 > How much would the list of attributes in 2.1.6 need to be expanded to = make one of these user-defined lists > enough to satisfy the initial "Reporting Requirements" in section 4.3 = of draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00? > Should we add the ability to match against the values (or absence of = value) of a state for the various state machines tracked by the tracker? >=20 > RjS >=20 > On Mar 14, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >=20 >> Paul - >>=20 >> 1) If we publish this as an RFC, note that imgur.com will only keep = an image if it's viewed at least once every three months. >>=20 >> 2) In the list of things constituting an "update to an RFC", could = you call out marking an RFC as Historic, and changing the >> maturity level of an RFC in place (such as was done for 5652) >>=20 >> 3) 2.1.2 talks of the ease of use to create a datatracker account. I = think we have that already through the tools system. >> Are you thinking this will require the creation of a different = system? >>=20 >> RjS >>=20 >> On Mar 4, 2011, at 4:46 PM, The IESG wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting = WG >>> (genarea) to consider the following document: >>> - 'Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in = the >>> Datatracker' >>> as an = Informational >>> RFC >>>=20 >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and = solicits >>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the >>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-18. Exceptionally, comments = may be >>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>=20 >>> The file can be obtained via >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/ >>>=20 >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/ >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-5--275681064 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
From: Robert Sparks = <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: March 14, 2011 = 4:46:03 PM CDT
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

One additional thought = -

How much would the list of attributes in 2.1.6 need to be = expanded to make one of these user-defined lists
enough to satisfy = the initial "Reporting Requirements" in section 4.3 of = draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00?
Should we add the = ability to match against the values (or absence of value) of a state for = the various state machines tracked by the tracker?

RjS

On = Mar 14, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

Paul -

1) If we = publish this as an RFC, note that imgur.com will only keep an image if it's = viewed at least once every three months.

2) In the list = of things constituting an "update to an RFC", could you call out marking = an RFC as Historic, and changing the
maturity level of an RFC in place (such as was done for = 5652)

3) 2.1.2 talks = of the ease of use to create a datatracker account. I think we have that = already through the tools system.
Are you thinking this will require the creation of a = different system?

RjS

On Mar 4, 2011, = at 4:46 PM, The IESG wrote:


The IESG has received a request = from the General Area Open Meeting = WG
(genarea) to consider the following = document:
- 'Requirements for = Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in = the
Datatracker'
<draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-06.txt> as = an Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a = decision in the next few weeks, and = solicits
final comments on this action. = Please send substantive comments to = the
ietf@ietf.org mailing = lists by 2011-03-18. Exceptionally, comments may = be
sent to iesg@ietf.org = instead. In either case, please retain = the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated = sorting.

The file can be obtained = via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-co= mmunity/

IESG discussion can be tracked = via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-co= mmunity/



No IPR declarations have been = submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing = list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.i= etf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce



= --Apple-Mail-5--275681064-- From rjsparks@nostrum.com Mon Mar 14 18:54:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C213A68AB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 HuAcucKvlMTv for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890423A6973 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-57-91-217.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.91.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2F1tfxv072867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:55:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) From: Robert Sparks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6--275605998 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:55:41 -0500 References: <95C23749-47F2-440B-87B5-ABC365B4B3E2@nostrum.com> To: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.57.91.217 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: [datatracker-rqmts] Fwd: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns requirements questions X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:54:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail-6--275605998 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii and of course my mail program remembered the typo in the list name for = me :(... Resending to get this to the list as well. RjS Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Sparks > Date: March 14, 2011 4:56:49 PM CDT > To: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns@tools.ietf.org, = datatracker-reqmts@ietf.org > Subject: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns requirements = questions >=20 > Hi Sandy, Michelle, and Alexa - >=20 > As the datatracker-iana-rfced document is refined, I think it would = help to be > more explicit about what you want to be machine-machine automated = between > the datatracker and the IANA and RFC Editor systems, and what you = expect to > remain as manual entry. >=20 > Every bit of information in the tracker that is a copy of information = that is authoritatively > kept somewhere else is a presents an opportunity for error, and a need = for automated > consistency checking and (often manual) reconciliation. Would it be = feasible to build > an interface across the systems that would let the tracker ask for the = authoritative information > when it needed it to respond to a request, rather than rely on a = having a duplicate of that information > entered into the tracker's databases? (We could, of course, look at = caching the results of such > a query). >=20 > As I asked Paul in response to the LC of the = genart-datatracker-community document, how > much of the discrepancy seeking reporting do you think you could = achieve with the dynamic > list feature being required there (if the ability to compare against = state values were added)? >=20 > RjS --Apple-Mail-6--275605998 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii and = of course my mail program remembered the typo in the list name for me = :(...
Resending to get this to the list as = well.

RjS

Begin forwarded = message:

From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: March 14, 2011 = 4:56:49 PM CDT

Hi Sandy, Michelle, = and Alexa -

As the datatracker-iana-rfced document is refined, I = think it would help to be
more explicit about what you want to be = machine-machine automated between
the datatracker and the IANA and = RFC Editor systems, and what you expect to
remain as manual = entry.

Every bit of information in the tracker that is a copy of = information that is authoritatively
kept somewhere else is a presents = an opportunity for error, and a need for automated
consistency = checking and (often manual) reconciliation. Would it be feasible to = build
an interface across the systems that would let the tracker ask = for the authoritative information
when it needed it to respond to a = request, rather than rely on a having a duplicate of that = information
entered into the tracker's databases? (We could, of = course, look at caching the results of such
a query).

As I = asked Paul in response to the LC of the genart-datatracker-community = document, how
much of the discrepancy seeking reporting do you think = you could achieve with the dynamic
list feature being required there = (if the ability to compare against state values were = added)?

RjS

= --Apple-Mail-6--275605998-- From rjsparks@nostrum.com Tue Mar 15 15:19:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2C43A6EA1; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 jCq7XYV5DJjq; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486963A6BC6; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-57-91-217.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.91.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2FMKpwN086034 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:20:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Robert Sparks In-Reply-To: <20110311221124.17584.25925.idtracker@localhost> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:20:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110311221124.17584.25925.idtracker@localhost> To: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.57.91.217 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Cc: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Last Call: (Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:19:29 -0000 Hi Paul - In section 2.2, I would prefer either using the names the tracker = currently uses for IESG evaluation: "Discuss" and "Comment", or some set of words that do not intersect = those, perhaps "Blocking" and "Not-Blocking". The current set ("discuss" and "regular") will lead to = confusion. In section 2.7, you don't specifically capture WGs that currently exist, = but are not rechartering at the moment. I think you meant to as part of the second paragraph, but the last = phrase could be read to be exclusive. (As an aside - do you intend that for existing working groups, this = history will go all the way back to when the group was formed? Will we be able to count on being = the charter that the working group formed with for all foo?) In section 3.1 - It would be better to have the ability to override the = tool's rejection of a name because some previous effort (particularly abandoned ones) had the same name. If = someone thought about using a name 5 years ago, but never took it even to the point of Internal Review, why = should the tool force it not be be used now? This is a place that human judgement should be allowed to be exercised. Also, we should make sure the tool doesn't unintentionally make = reopening a closed WG harder than intended. It would help to clarify in the first bullet in 3.1 that the tool should = prompt the AD, but not prevent them from completing the move if that's the right thing to do. (The tool is = providing a reminder, not enforcing a rule). In the 4th bullet of that list, you ask the tool to send a note to the = scretariat to schedule discussion on a telechat. In practice today, this happens as part of the transition into External = Review. I suggest moving the sentence into the 3rd bullet. In section 3.2's second bullet, it is possible, I believe, to directly = approve a recharter from internal review. The tool should allow that transition. I'm a little concerned about taking working groups for which a recharter = is being considered out of the state named "WG Exists". Semantically, if you aren't in that state, it implies the = WG doesn't exist, and I could see someone drawing the wrong conclusion from a search. The best way to avoid this = might be to rename the "WG Exists" state to something like "WG Chartered - no rechartering effort currently in = progress" (which I realize is too wordy). RjS On Mar 11, 2011, at 4:11 PM, The IESG wrote: >=20 > The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting WG > (genarea) to consider the following document: > - 'Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool' > as an Informational RFC >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-25. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 18 17:56:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D633A69E0; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.491, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, 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 bZBJ+TqysYpv; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4870:a30c:41::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE963A69B9; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.150] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2J0vw8f074501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:57:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:57:58 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <01E104C7-3372-4671-8578-7FA570EFC81A@vpnc.org> References: <20110311221124.17584.25925.idtracker@localhost> To: Robert Sparks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Last Call: (Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:56:31 -0000 On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Hi Paul - Thanks again for the copious comments; they are greatly appreciated. > In section 2.2, I would prefer either using the names the tracker = currently uses for IESG evaluation: > "Discuss" and "Comment", or some set of words that do not intersect = those, perhaps "Blocking" and > "Not-Blocking". The current set ("discuss" and "regular") will lead to = confusion. Changed to "blocking" and "non-blocking". (I'm not a big fan of = gratuitous capitalization, as exemplified by "a DISCUSS"...) > In section 2.7, you don't specifically capture WGs that currently = exist, but are not rechartering at the moment. > I think you meant to as part of the second paragraph, but the last = phrase could be read to be exclusive. Yeeps; fixed. > (As an aside - do you intend that for existing working groups, this = history will go all the way back to when > the group was formed? Will we be able to count on = being the charter that the working group > formed with for all foo?) I have no idea. That's why I use the waffle-words "as much information = as is currently known...that can be done in a mostly-automated fashion". = It's up to the IAOC to decide how much effort to throw at that part. > In section 3.1 - It would be better to have the ability to override = the tool's rejection of a name because some > previous effort (particularly abandoned ones) had the same name. If = someone thought about using a name > 5 years ago, but never took it even to the point of Internal Review, = why should the tool force it not be be used now? > This is a place that human judgement should be allowed to be = exercised. Fixed. Changed "so the tool will tell the AD if the acronym that is = being proposed has been used in earlier WG charter proposals and prevent = its use" to "so the tool will warn the AD if the acronym that is being = proposed has been used in earlier WG charter proposals and suggest = against its use". > Also, we should make sure the tool doesn't unintentionally make = reopening a closed WG harder than intended. I think that is covered above. > It would help to clarify in the first bullet in 3.1 that the tool = should prompt the AD, but not prevent them from > completing the move if that's the right thing to do. (The tool is = providing a reminder, not enforcing a rule). Done. > In the 4th bullet of that list, you ask the tool to send a note to the = scretariat to schedule discussion on a telechat. > In practice today, this happens as part of the transition into = External Review. I suggest moving the sentence into > the 3rd bullet. That was not my reading of the current IESG procedures. Let me talk that = one over with the IESG. > In section 3.2's second bullet, it is possible, I believe, to directly = approve a recharter from internal review. The tool > should allow that transition. Added. > I'm a little concerned about taking working groups for which a = recharter is being considered out of the state named > "WG Exists". Semantically, if you aren't in that state, it implies the = WG doesn't exist, and I could see someone > drawing the wrong conclusion from a search. The best way to avoid this = might be to rename the "WG Exists" state > to something like "WG Chartered - no rechartering effort currently in = progress" (which I realize is too wordy). Yes, wordy. Currently, that list is followed by "All states above, = except for "WG exists", are given the annotation "Rechartering"." Would = it suffice to change the annotation to "WG continuing during = rechartering" or something of that ilk? --Paul Hoffman