Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Draft dependency graph / tool

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 08:41:50 -0700

>Hi, there might be an oddity with the I-D dependency graphs:
>
>Trying to cleanup some old drafts I found a match from old name
>to new name for most EAI drafts.  With the I-D dependency graph
>I could verify this.  After some time I ended up with one "old"
>(2006-02-26) unmatched draft-klensin-ima-constraints-00
>
>It's referenced as [I18Nemail-constraints] in the EAI framework
>draft (draft-ietf-eai-framework-01).  Apparently the dependency
>graph doesn't display this reference.

As Henrik says, the tools depend on seeing the draft string in
the document.  I've got a wishlist item to grab the title
if there's no draft string and search for that in all_id.txt;
however, my reference parser is incredibly naive so this would
be a major change - basically a total rewrite.  If anyone would
like to contribute code that recognizes references and gives
me the title, I'd be happy to implement the rest.

>Another point, the graph shows draft-klensin-net-utf8 in state
>"IESG or RFC Queue".

This wasn't wrong, per se, but I guess you expected to see
something else?  What?

Thanks,
  Bill

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:02:55 +0200

Bill Fenner wrote:
 
> As Henrik says, the tools depend on seeing the draft string
> in the document.  I've got a wishlist item to grab the title
> however, my reference parser is incredibly naive so this
> would be a major change - basically a total rewrite.

ACK, looking at the graph with many EAI dependencies correctly
identified - including "dead" (= renamed) documents - I missed
that it simply _cannot_ identify _all_ potential references.
It's good as it is.

>> Another point, the graph shows draft-klensin-net-utf8 in
>> state "IESG or RFC Queue".
 
> This wasn't wrong, per se, but I guess you expected to see

My intuition was "last call or later", and apparently you have
"publication requested or later".  Your definition is better,
it works also for cases without "last call".  

Another clear cut could be "approved or later" (= in RFC editor
queue or already published).  You already have another tool for
this period, so I guess that's also good as is, nothing to do,
unless you're collecting FAQs :-)

Thanks, Frank

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 15:36:45 -0700

>unless you're collecting FAQs :-)

Well, I wouldn't mind creating another shape/color/something
combination to seperate "publication requested through approved"
from "approved through published", if that's what you're thinking.

  Bill

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:12:31 +0200

Bill Fenner wrote:
 
> I wouldn't mind creating another shape/color/something
> combination to seperate "publication requested through
> approved" from "approved through published", if that's
> what you're thinking.

It's probably one of these "once you've understood it it's
obvious" things, and with an additional shape or colour the
legend would need more place (BTW, that's a PDF working with
the oldest PDF reader I still have).

Maybe replace the legend by an URL, then you have more room
for complex dependencies (?)  My application "use the graph
to figure out how a new WG renamed about six pre-WG drafts"
is a bit esoteric.

Frank