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

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:26:07 +0200

Forwarding this to tools-discuss, too.	/Henrik

-------- Begin forwarded message: --------

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:51:08 +0200
From: "Jari Arkko (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft

I like automation. I think it would be great if the
tools handled nits checking, file posting, IPR/copyright
confirmation and all that, probably getting the draft
to the web site in minutes. Compare this to the delay
we have now, which is days -- not bad compared to past
times but it would still speed up the process, let the
secretariat do other, more useful things. And it would
probably increase quality too, less accidents and more
formal checking during submission.

I think the tools should read things like author information
from the draft. People would hate typing all that in again.
But it may be fine for the tool to ask if the information
it has read is correct, as a confirmation. Or get a
confirmation that the user has read "Note well".

As for the chair approval part: when we automate processes,
we do not have to follow the current manual process, we
can do things in a different way if it makes sense. Just because
we can require a chair to sign off in the tool does not
mean that we should. In fact, in order to make things go
smoothly, I would propose that an optimistic security
mechanism be adopted as opposed to a prior or real-time
approval: give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft
if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one.

A couple of detailed comments to the draft below:

- I don't think we want the cut & paste option. Upload
  is sufficient.

- I'm not sure the correct metadata & go to manual process
  option is useful. Is there some reason why we can't require
  either that (a) the draft be corrected so that the metadata
  can actually be read, or that (b) the user fills in the
  metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation
  anyway?

  I'd like to keep the e-mail based submission process
  as a backup, but I see no reason to add a new manual
  mode to the tool.

- "two versions are submitted with a suspiciously small gap?"
  I think this is a non-problem. Fortunately, some people
  may read your draft immediately, and notice a problem that
  you want to correct. Or, unfortunately, you yourself notice
  something that went wrong. I think we need to allow new versions
  even with a short time gap.

- I'd rather see the tool as one "submit page" rather than
  a separate "upload" and "check pages". You submit and then
  you get back the information that you want to verify, and
  then you either press OK or resubmit/correct.

- Security considerations and submitter authentication.
  Perhaps we should think about e-mail address verification,
  just to confirm that the web user is actually able to
  receive e-mail at the address he claims to have.

  The other question is if we should allow anyone to
  submit. For new drafts, the answer is yes, I think.
  For old drafts, I would propose that any of the
  authors of the old revision can post a new one.
  Then we have many cases of the-old-authors-are-no-longer-
  interested-and-someone-else-took-over; those can be
  handled by the manual e-mail based approach just fine.

--Jari

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:09 +0200

Hi Jari,

	Thanks for the feedback!  Some notes inline...

> confirmation that the user has read "Note well".

Agreed, on both counts.

> if someone has fraudulently/erroneously submitted one.

!! That's an interesting idea, which we've not discussed in
the team.  I like it :-)

> - I don't think we want the cut & paste option. Upload

Noted

>   metadata and then we do the automatic publish operation

After Scott's comments, I think that I favour (a) - that seems
to not lead into ratholes, and it's simple

>   as a backup, but I see no reason to add a new manual

Noted

>   even with a short time gap.

Ok

>   then you either press OK or resubmit/correct.

Ok.  Would you suggest that the IPR/copyright confirmation be
on a 3rd page, or combined with the verify page?

>   receive e-mail at the address he claims to have.

Yes, I think that is right.  

>   authors of the old revision can post a new one.

This has been the intention, yes.

>   handled by the manual e-mail based approach just fine.

Right.

	Henrik

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:01:56 +0300

> on a 3rd page, or combined with the verify page?

Either way is fine with me, but perhaps one verified issue
per page would be more readable. First page: verify that the
metadata is right. Second page: ack that you have comply with
the copyright etc rules.

--Jari

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:56:40 -0400 (EDT)

> > give the chairs a function to remove a WG draft

this process has caused significant issues in teh past

people can get quite burnt if they get a very public rebuke by having
their ID removed - I do not think this is a good idea (plus the fact
is that IDs never get removed from teh net - that ID will be there about
forever with the wrong name)

I think this is quite a bad idea

Scott

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14:55 +0200

> forever with the wrong name)

The 'rebuked' feeling is one clear downside.

The fact that a lot of places are rsyncing against the archive
at all times is something I didn't think of in my first reaction.
That means that it is essentially impossible to completely remove
a draft once it has hit the archive.

To me, this makes the idea very much less attractive.

	Henrik

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:27:48 +0300

> forever with the wrong name)

Ok -- given that the IDs can get distributed very widely it is
perhaps best to ensure that the I-Ds have authorization first
before assigning them a WG-based name. And I was surprised by
the amount of people who have had experiences with non-approved
WG document submissions! However, I'm still hoping that
the authorization process can be made as smooth as possible.
Perhaps you can allow both prior authorizations as well as
enabling a chair to allow a pending I-D submission. (Or maybe
the manual secretariat process can handle the latter case?
This could handle also the AD-approvals when both chairs are
unavailable.)

--Jari