Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Tools team work items

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:48:02 -0500 (EST)

sob ranking (fwiw)
   1. I-D tracker extended for use by Chairs
	to me this is the most important thing - it will give
	WG chairs the tools they need to manage things and have the
	info public in a common format

   2. Html-ized WG agendas
	easy(ish) and useful

   3. WG Status update web interface
	easy(ish) and useful 

   4. Publication request tool
	the useful part here to me is the ID-nits checker

   5. WG page components, provided to all WGs:
	having all WGs using common tools would help a lot
	in getting a rational understanding of cross WG status and work
	could be a lot of work

   6. RSS/Atom feeds for new IDs, RFCs, WGs, ...
	more useful in the future than now but should not be a big task

   7. Notification service - "mail me when this draft/charter changes"
	cute but does not seem high priority

   8. WG Meeting scheduler
	very very hard to do right (from direct experience with
	class scheduling systems in higher ed) - might be able
	to buy or get a package (a package might also support individual
	attendees noting what they are interested in or letting
	chairs note a list of involved people etc)

can't tell from description
   Components needed by multiple tools (e.g. TMDA? Plone? )
	I'd think that the priority of this should be an internal
	matter to the tool builders - if doing a common set of
	tools first it will speed up other projects or make
	them easier to maintain it sould like a good thing

   IETF Meta-information
	from the description this seems to be a sub part of the 
	"Components needed by multiple tools" task but I can not tell

   Draft status pages (revs, diffs, comments)
	how is this different from the I-D tracker update?

  Proposed WG / Bof tools - web/wiki space
	why is this different than the WG tools?

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

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:03:43 -0700

> 	how is this different from the I-D tracker update?

AFAIK, ID tracker does not provide much information about drafts that are  
not submitted for publication.
And even for submitted drafts, the tracker focuses on IESG review  
states/activities. Most IETFers may lose interest after Last Call but need  
a lot more information as the draft is being created/updated...

The draft status page should provide:
	- draft status (similar to what ID tracker does now)
	- latest draft version text
	- latest draft version [XML] sources (if available)
	- latest draft HTML rendering (if available)
	- latest draft meta-data
	- same for older [un-expired] draft versions
	- generated diffs between any two [un-expired] draft versions
	- "notify me when this draft changes" knob
	- etc. (e.g., somebody asked for "obsoletes X" or "renamed to Y"  
meta-information for drafts)

The meta-data would include things like email address for discussing the  
draft, authors, WG name, etc.
It will be provided by the ID Submission tool and/or extracted from the  
drafts. Other IETF tools will use
this meta-data. For example, the tool that generates a WG summary page,  
would be able to find all individual and WG drafts that are in WG scope.

Given a draft name (without the version number), I should be able to link  
to the latest version of the draft, read an easy-to-navigate rendering,  
see what has recently changed, where to send comments, etc.

Does the above clarify what this item is about? If it does, where would  
you position this item?

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:40 -0500 (EST)

> not submitted for publication.

agreed - but my question was different

if the tracker gets updated for WG chair use I would want most
of these things anyway - so I was asking if there needs to be
two seperate tasks (I think we just need one that includes the
sort of thing you mention here)

Scott

00000000

...

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:06:40 -0700

> sort of thing you mention here)

My understanding is that the two items are related but sufficiently  
different. The "draft status" item deals with displaying/summarizing  
virtually all available information about the draft (i.e., "read" mode).  
The "ID tracker" item deals with providing additional information about  
the draft (i.e., "write" mode).

Personally, I would not merge the two. I do not want one activity to get  
blocked by another. I also suspect that a few other tools would operate in  
"write" mode (e.g., ID submission tool or Request for Publication
tool). For consistency and simplicity, I would document each separately  
instead of merging them into a "Things we can do with drafts" draft.

On the other hand, there is no harm in giving both items the same position  
on the priority list.

Let's see what others prefer. Does anybody have a strong opinion here?

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:16:51 -0700

> 	"Components needed by multiple tools" task but I can not tell

We struggled with terminology here and failed to get it clear enough.  
"Components" item deals with software pieces, libraries, or products that  
many tools can use. "Meta-information" item deals with what information is  
available to IETF tools. For example, XML DTDs describing IETF WGs or  
known IETF participants would belong to the Meta-information item, while  
the library/tool that helps with participant authentication would belong  
to the "components" item. The latter tool is likely to use the  
meta-information about known IETF participants.

> 	why is this different than the WG tools?

I thought that proposed WGs need things that established WGs do not need.  
For example, established WGs do not need BoF-related tools. I think it  
would be useful to recognize "proposed WG" as a special category and  
eventually provide tools/interfaces so that it is easy to setup a  
"proposed WG" web space, discussion, charter, etc. without giving proposed  
WGs rights such as publishing WG drafts.

Alex.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:25:13 -0500

--On onsdag, november 17, 2004 16:06:40 -0700 Alex Rousskov 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On the other hand, there is no harm in giving both items the same
> position  on the priority list.

note - in practice, there is no such thing as "the same position on the 
priority list".

another note - we need to separate our thinking a bit between tools and 
databases.
we need (IMHO) one unified database of "what's the state of this draft", 
possibly with multiple databases "hanging on the side" of that for 
related-but-not-the-same information (such as IESG ballots or WG issue 
trackers).
and we need multiple tools (I-D submission tool, IESG processing tool, 
publication request tool, WG shepherding tool) that interfaces to this 
database.

In some cases (problem-area wikis?), there is no need for a common database.

But we'll have a hard time discussing what to do first if we continue to 
mix "which databases do we need" with "which tools do we need to manipulate 
the data".

Just my NOK 0.50 (smallest coin available here...)