Subject: [Tools-discuss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:50:16 -0600 (MDT)

As far as I know, the -01 version of the draft reflects all comments 
received so far (except for Henrik's list of idnit checkpoints). See 
Change Log appendix for details. Thanks to everybody who reviewed the 
draft! If your comment does not seem to be reflected or is reflected 
incorrectly, please let me know.

The biggest to-do items, IMO, are factoring out specific 
implementation requirements and documenting their priorities. 
Resolving and polishing XXXs is also important.

I am not sure where requirements for draft archive manipulation and 
rendering belong. They are currently not documented anywhere. I may 
post about that separately.

Thank you,

Alex.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

 	Title		: Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset
 	Author(s)	: A. Rousskov
 	Filename	: draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt
 	Pages		: 21
 	Date		: 2004-9-21

This document specifies requirements for an IETF toolset facilitating
Internet-Draft submission, validation, and posting.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-01.txt

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:39:19 +0300 (EEST)

> Resolving and polishing XXXs is also important.

I think this incorporates the comments reasonably well.. of course, 
the difficult thing is to get those XXXs resolved in an agreeable 
manner :)

One comment on the new text:

      Does the author request this submission to be published (i.e.,
      forwarded to IESG or RFC Editor for review and publication as an
      RFC or BCP)? The author would tick a corresponding checkbox on the
      web interface to set the "publication requested" flag.  [[XXX32:
      clarify that for-publication submissions may be subjected to more
      mandatory checks than other drafts.  --Alex]][[XXX45: Currently,
      it is the WG Chair that submits "for publication" drafts to the
      AD.  This meta-data flag would let authors do it.  The intent is
      to enable more strict checks before the submission, to improve the
      quality of the drafts submitted for IESG review.  Bad idea?
      --Alex]]

.. I think it would be a bad idea to allow authors to submit drafts
for the consideration of the AD just like that.  Further, existing
documents (not just the new ones) can be pushed to the ADs as well
(e.g., if there are no comments during WG last call of a document, so
that the doc doesn't require to be revised), so this couldn't be the
only way to deal with "request to advance" requests either.

However, I would see no problem in the authors selecting a knob like
"yes, I intend to get this draft published, so I want the feedback on
whether it passes the form nits or not".

I would see no objection to having a tool which would automate the
"request to advance" -messages (which could also check e.g., the form
nits similar to above), but that would probably be a slightly
different, if a lot simpler, tool.

-- 
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: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:56:36 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

> I think it would be a bad idea to allow authors to submit drafts
> for the consideration of the AD just like that.

Agreed.

> ...

I think we do not need a knob for this. The Check page should always 
contain that information (i.e., a list of warnings that are likely to 
become errors and require new revisions if the draft is sent to IESG).

> "request to advance" -messages (which could also check e.g., the 
> form nits similar to above), but that would probably be a slightly 

Yes, I am leaning towards the same solution. The "request to advance" 
tool would be used by WG Chairs (where applicable) and will only apply 
to posted drafts. It will strongly advise against (if not refuse) 
requesting to advance a draft that fails certain checks.

Question: Is this something worth documenting and automating? On one 
hand, compared to posting drafts, advancing is a relatively rare 
event. On the other hand, we may be able to save IESG and RFC Editor 
considerable amount of resources if we check drafts before they are 
advanced, explicitly show detectable bugs, and strongly encourage 
authors to fix them first.

Opinions?

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:15:56 +0200

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

 [snip]

> hand, compared to posting drafts, advancing is a relatively rare event. 
> On the other hand, we may be able to save IESG and RFC Editor 

Sounds like a nice tool proposal to me :-)

I'll enter it as proposed on the web site.

	Henrik