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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:34:29 +0300

Pekka,

Reformatting your message slightly:

> So, I think this optimistic approach will cause significant hassle
> especially by those that don't really understand the process, i.e.,
> the difference of draft-surname-foo-00 and draft-ietf-wg-foo-00.

Is this currently a problem & if so, how wide-scale? I have not seen
this happen before, even though I am chairing 2 working groups 
presently.

One would assume if we made automatic submission possible via a web
page, text could be added saying:

	Draft names of the following format draft-ietf-wg-foo-00.txt MUST 
	have prior approval of WG chairs and ADs.

> Does this include an explicit email notification to the chairs?  If 
> so, it could be acceptable even if I find it slightly undesirable.

I would hope so.

> What happens to such inappropriately published WG drafts?  Eliminated
> completely, vanishing without any trace?  Note that this information
> is reflected in very many places: WG charter page, WG mailing list,
> etc. -- does a withdrawal message get sent to the WG mailing list as
> well?

How have we handled this in the past? Have our past ways of handling it 
cause problems?

John

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:00:49 +0300 (EEST)

> this happen before, even though I am chairing 2 working groups 

Not sure of how wide-scale, but this has come across me.

And can we actually even know how wide scale this is?  The IETF 
secretariat probably would know best how many WG -00 submissions turn 
out which aren't approved..

> 	have prior approval of WG chairs and ADs.

That would be one way to address the problem, at least to the large 
part.

> How have we handled this in the past? Have our past ways of handling it 

Just one example,

draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as
draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt, WG chairs weren't asked (for
some reasons), and it went on the WG charter pages and was announced
on the WG list, the document stuck there for a week or so, then I
noticed that something was amiss and complained to the secretariat,
who removed it from the WG page.

draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt still exists for some reason.  
draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as a result and has
now expired.

And this was in the manual system.  Now we're talking about making it
automatic.  This has me worried.

-- 
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: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:49:27 -0700

> draft-yoo-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use-00.txt was submitted as a result and has

Note: stuff happens, and cruft remains lying around when it
shouldn't. I see it, and we all probably do if we look. When you see
something that isn't right, send a note to internet-drafts (maybe
cc'ing your AD if appropriate) stating how you'd like things fixed.

For the draft that still exists, did anyone ask that it be deleted?

Personally, I think this is one of the chair's jobs, to fix things
related to their WGs that don't seem right, as things _do_ happen...

Thomas