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

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:40:03 +0200

Hi Scott,

scott bradner wrote:

> this looks pretty good but a few comments
> 
> this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID text
> and trying to parse and check it, not an unreasonable approach but was
> the alternative of having the submitter fill in some or all of the meta
> data on a submission form (authors names & contacts, filename,
> boilerplate options etc) considered?

Hmm, it's maybe not clear enough, but the idea is to parse the ID for
information, and use it to fill in a meta information page, which will
let the submitter correct or change it - but hopefully also will minimise
the work associated with doing a submission.

> I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the
> confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included
> a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent
> disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the
> submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say
> that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate - this is a
> proposal that has come up a few times over the last few years, if we
> create a tool for people to use to submit IDs it would seem to be a good
> time to implement such a process

Adding such a click-through page after the meta-information confirmation
page should be easy (provided we have agreement on that, of course).

> I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs
> pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be
> able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm
> fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think
> it should be the only way that the process should be able to work

So in your view, the alternative of holding on to the submission and
e.g. sending a mail (including a cookie) to the chair, which he can 
return to indicate approval, would be a necessary part of this?

One consideration in doing this as pre-approval was to avoid wg draft
acceptance being author-driven rather than wg/chair driven - but I 
suspect that doing this as a three step process (pre-approval to be
permitted to submit -- author submission -- chair final approval by
return mail) would be too cumbersome...

	Henrik

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

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:49:54 -0400 (EDT)

> the work associated with doing a submission.

sounds good - if the submitter changes something does the ID text get
changed to match? (if not there is a big chance for bad data somewhere)

> page should be easy (provided we have agreement on that, of course).

tnx

> return to indicate approval, would be a necessary part of this?

yes (but also support what you proposed if the WG chair wants to go that way)

> acceptance being author-driven rather than wg/chair driven -

the acceptance of a 00 WG draft must be chair (not author) driven under 
current rules and those rules were put in for a reason (no such issue
with non-00 versions)

> but I 

that sounds like an unneeded extra step

Scott

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:34 +0200

scott bradner wrote:

...
> changed to match? (if not there is a big chance for bad data somewhere)

Good question!  Mmm, if there are changes which cannot be matched 
against the draft, maybe it would be better to reject the submission -
just offer the author the chance to accept or break off the process.

The fact that the meta-information extraction has produced information
which doesn't match the author's idea of correct information would 
indicate that trying to change the draft text might really mess it up...

...
> yes (but also support what you proposed if the WG chair wants to go that way)

Ok.

> current rules and those rules were put in for a reason (no such issue

Yes.  I was given to understand that there had been some WG's where
the chairs had been a bit too lax in this respect, and changing to a 
pre-approval model might help alleviate this ...  Personally I like
the post-approval model more, speaking as a chair.  We had a bit of
discussion of this particular point within the team :-)

> that sounds like an unneeded extra step

Right.

	Henrik

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:24:35 -0400 (EDT)

> just offer the author the chance to accept or break off the process.

I think that may be teh safest way to proceed

> indicate that trying to change the draft text might really mess it up...

:-) big time

Scott