Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: I-D submission tool draft

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:28:47 -0600 (MDT)

Pekka Savola wrote:

> For what it's worth, I don't see why we even need a web tool.  Why 
> not just send the draft over email?  You can do the same kind of 
> challenge-response with that as well if needed.  I can deal with 
> http, but email seems reasonably simple approach at least for the 
> more experienced...

I think this is a very good point if phrased as "there can be more 
than one interface to the submission toolset". If the submission 
toolset is implemented along the currently specified lines, it would 
be simple to auto-post valid drafts via e-mail. If there are no 
objections, I will add "e-mail interface" option to the draft as a 
nice-to-have second-generation feature.

I believe web interface is still needed for those who want to validate 
the drafts (and not post them) and just for those who like "preview", 
list of "warnings", an option to post manually via Secretariat, and 
other nice features of the web interface.

While virtually everything can be done via e-mail (or any other 
communication protocol), there are things that can be done much more 
naturally on the web. Fortunately, we do not have to select one 
interface over the other in this case.

> How would the tool know that a draft is intended for "publication 
> requested" state.

Via a checkbox that the submitter may select.

>>   [[XXX2: should the posting program obtain all authors consent?
>>   --Alex]]
>
> definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, of 
> whom we'd never get an ack or nack.

Good point. However, do you think the tool should at least try to 
prevent me from adding you as a co-author for a draft you have no idea 
about (for example)? We can add "always approve for this draft" flags 
to authors and reasonable timeouts.

Thank you,

Alex.

-- 
Protocol performance, functionality, and reliability testing.
Tools, services, and know-how.
http://www.measurement-factory.com/

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:41 +0300 (EEST)

> to authors and reasonable timeouts.

This is not prevented today, and I think there are 
serious disadvantages to it (relating to the latecy of getting an 
ack), so I think this should be out of scope for this tool.

At most, the tool could send an email to all of the authors listed in 
the draft, and wait until *one* of them sends an acknowledgement, but 
that wouldn't prevent what you describe, and would have problems e.g., 
when WG chairs try to submit document on absent authors' behalf.

So, I'd suggest just skipping this attempt.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:52:45 -0600 (MDT)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

>>> definitely not, there are past authors who are no longer active, 
>>> of whom we'd never get an ack or nack.
>>
>> prevent me from adding you as a co-author for a draft you have no 
>> idea about (for example)? We can add "always approve for this 
>> draft" flags to authors and reasonable timeouts.
>
> This is not prevented today, and I think there are serious 
> disadvantages to it (relating to the latecy of getting an ack), so I 
> think this should be out of scope for this tool.

Noted. Looks like another issue where there is no clear consensus so 
far. If it were not for "by submitting this draft, all authors..." IPR 
statements, I would be much less concerned.

Not surprisingly, folks position seem to depend on whether they were 
personally bitten by a given technically preventable problem. That's 
why "design by committee" rarely works, I guess :-).

> At most, the tool could send an email to all of the authors listed 
> in the draft, and wait until *one* of them sends an acknowledgement, 
> but that wouldn't prevent what you describe, and would have problems 
> e.g., when WG chairs try to submit document on absent authors' 
> behalf.
>

At the very least, I would suggest sending a "your draft has been 
posted" e-mail to all listed authors and the WG mailing list (for WG 
drafts). No response would be required/solicited. While this scheme 
does not allow for abuse prevention, it discourages abuse and helps 
folks notice problems (and updates) faster.

In the future, it would be nice to let "3rd party" folks register 
their e-mails to receive such notifications for a given draft or WG 
activity.

Thanks,

Alex.