Subject: [Tools-discuss] A thought on I-Ds

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:15:45 -0400

It seems to me that a huge part of what the secretariat does in ID  
posting is ensure that a stated boilerplate is there and *if* it is  
named draft-ietf-* that the WG has accepted the draft. XML2RFC is  
popular.

What if -

suppose that the secretariat externalized a web page that did  
essentially the tool on Marshall's xml.resource.org page, and had an  
option to say "post the draft". The tool starts from an XML form and  
produces the right boilerplate, obviating one check. The other check  
could be obviated by ensuring that its name is in a certain list.  
This would allow people to post drafts without taking up secretariat  
staff cycles. The existing process remains available for those that  
use other tools.

I'm probably missing something. What?

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:22:31 -0700

Fred Baker wrote:
> named draft-ietf-* that the WG has accepted the draft. XML2RFC is popular.
> 
> What if -
> 
> could be obviated by ensuring that its name is in a certain list. This
> would allow people to post drafts without taking up secretariat staff
> cycles. The existing process remains available for those that use other
> tools.
> 

Not everybody uses XML.

Joe

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:47:42 +0200

Hi Fred,

> I'm probably missing something. What?

This is a subset of the proposed draft submission web-page functionality.
The document below describes that and other aspect of the tool, has been
approved by the IESG, and we're hoping that design and implementation can
start soon:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:12:45 +0300 (EEST)

>> I'm probably missing something. What?

And those could continue using secretariat's manual services.

But as to Fred -- it's not quite as simple; 
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-09.txt (in rfc-ed queue) describes 
quite many requirements.  I guess now we're just waiting for someone 
to Do Something(tm).

-- 
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: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:33:25 -0400

I didn't say they did. I said that those that do could use such a  
tool and it would have certain predictable effects. I also said that  
the existing mechanism would presumably stay in place for the rest of  
us.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:24:42 +0100

Fred Baker wrote:
> I didn't say they did. I said that those that do could use such a  tool 
> and it would have certain predictable effects. I also said that  the 
> existing mechanism would presumably stay in place for the rest of  us.
> 

We have data suggesting that about 50% of people now use XML, so the
effort that can be saved is significant.

As far as the specified tool goes, getting this done is a resource
issue at the secretariat and therefore in the IAD's orbit. But we
will be discussing tool priorities with the future contractor
in Vancouver.

     Brian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:58:47 -0800

> effort that can be saved is significant.

Sure - others have pointed out that this is optional, which is all I was
 implying.

Joe