Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: document status and other WG information

From: Baker Fred <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:16:27 -0600

My only problem with it is that it tells me a lot about drafts that are  
already expired and nothing about a number of private submissions to  
v6ops that the working group is, in at least some cases, actively  
tracking, and will be presented this morning.

A diff between the sorted list of drafts mentioned on the tools page  
and the currently-posted draft-*-v6ops-* files:

1,2c1,5
< draft-palet-v6tc-goals-tunneling
< draft-pouffary-v6ops-ent-v6net
---
 > draft-choi-v6ops-natpt-ipsec
 > draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition
 > draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout
 > draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage
 > draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo
4,6d6
< draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-cases
< draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-ipv6use
< draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security
8d7
< draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements
12,22d10
< draft-ietf-v6ops-entnet-scenarios
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-gen
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip
< draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans
28,29d15
< draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios
< draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval
30a17,27
 > draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios
 > draft-liumin-v6ops-silkroad
 > draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel
 > draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans
 > draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security
 > draft-palet-v6ops-solution-tun-auto-disc
 > draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
 > draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview
 > draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels
 > draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap
 > draft-vives-v6ops-ipv6-security-ps

It is the ones with the ">" symbol that I need information on.

Tell me: how are these pages maintained? I suspect that the information  
came from the chairs of the WG. Let me throw out another thought.

I can get a current list of WG and personal submissions to v6ops from

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
command=search_list&search_job_owner=0&search_group_acronym=&search_stat 
us_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=v6ops&search_rfc 
number=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH

What I really now need is an annotation of some sort as to what the WG  
chair thinks of a personal submission that the AD is not yet tracking -
  - has not yet been picked up by the chair, or
  - moved to some other WG and therefore replaced with another draft,
  - is being tracked by the WG chair,
  - is relevant to a discussion the WG has decided to not follow up on.

This last makes it truly a personal submission to the IETF. Other than  
"replaced by", which requires an actual text entry, these may simply be  
additional states in the state table...

On Mar 9, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> It would be very nice to see current personal drafts under v6ops there  
> too...
>
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:44:49PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The proto team has developed a couple of very nice pages, e.g., to  
>> better illustrate the document status of a WG.
>>
>> Please take a look at it at:
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/
>>
>> -- 
>> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
> -- 
> Tim

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:31:01 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Baker Fred wrote:
> already expired and nothing about a number of private submissions to v6ops 
> that the working group is, in at least some cases, actively tracking, and 
> will be presented this morning.

Yes, this shortcoming is known by the tools team, and likely addressed 
at some point.

> It is the ones with the ">" symbol that I need information on.

Sure.  It just does not list personal submissions at this point.

> Tell me: how are these pages maintained? I suspect that the information came 
> from the chairs of the WG. Let me throw out another thought.

Automatically based on I-D announcements and the I-D database, I 
think.  The chairs have no say on what goes on these pages. (Except on 
the tools-discuss and wgchairs lists :)

> What I really now need is an annotation of some sort as to what the WG chair 
> thinks of a personal submission that the AD is not yet tracking -

Yes, I agree this would be highly useful if the page were to include 
the personal submissions.  There should be a pretty strong disclaimer 
or a note by the chairs what's the intention (and relevance) of these 
submissions.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:34:02 -0600

> Yes, this shortcoming is known by the tools team, and likely addressed 

Correct.  It's high on my TO-DO list for the WG Status pages.

> the tools-discuss and wgchairs lists :)

The pages are generated automatically based on information published
by the secretariat - the drafts themselves, and the files
1wg_charter.txt, 1wg_summary.txt, all_id.txt, 1id-abstracts.txt, and
1id-index.txt

Just yesterday the secretariat developer Mile Lee on request added a
feature to the I-D tracker and I-D db web interfaces which permits me
to query tracker and db information by exact explicit draft name - this
will let me add information to the draft pages which is not in the above
files, but is in the tracker / database.

> or a note by the chairs what's the intention (and relevance) of these 

I have planned to give _chairs_ the ability to add notes relevant to
any draft, which will be shown on the WG draft status pages.  

Are you indicating that it would be helpful to also give the _draft
authors_ the ability to add annotations about individual drafts, so
that these annotations also show up on the draft status pages?

	Henrik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:06:23 +0200 (EET)

> that these annotations also show up on the draft status pages?

At least I think this information should be writable by the WG chairs 
(and maybe WG secretary, if any) only.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:26:49 -0600

> (and maybe WG secretary, if any) only.

Ok.  It certainly makes sense to me that the Secretary should be able
to do this.  

	Henrik

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:50:40 -0600

My proposal would be to add process for declaring individual I-Ds 
"interesting" to a WG.
E.g.:

If an individual I-D has been solicited by the WG (e.g., from a DT),
or the WG has discussed an individual submission and decided to invest
further work into it, the WG chair can designate it as a document
"watched" by the WG.  Updates of watched documents become watched
documents automatically.  The WG chair can "unwatch" an individual I-D
when the WG loses interest.  When a WG adopts an individual I-D as a
WG document, the category watched/unwatched no longer applies (all WG
documents are by definition interesting to the WG).

Gruesse, Carsten