Subject: [Tools-discuss] IDST draft name validation for -00 drafts

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:10:13 -0800

Recently, draft-sipping-stucker-media-path-middleboxes-00.txt was posted using
IDST.  A mistake was made and it is called "draft-sipping-stucker" rather than
the intended "draft-stucker-sipping".

It seems useful for IDST to check, upon submission of a -00 draft, for a
collision of the string after "draft-" and before the next "-" with an
existing working group name.  If such a collision occurs, an additional
confirmation could be requested of the submitter.  This would not slow down
the submission process, but would provide a way for a submitter to notice an
easy-to-make mistake such as this.

(More desirable would be to validate that the LASTNAME (draft-LASTNAME-*)
matches one of the author's last names, but this is difficult with
non-US-ASCII last names, draft-manyfolks-*, and compound last names ("Mac
Manas" could legitimately be either macmanas or mac-manus.  Thus, validating
there isn't a collision with existing working groups could be useful and
easier to implement.)

-d

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:38:05 +0100

> there isn't a collision with existing working groups could be useful and

Reasonable suggestions.  I've forwarded this to the submission tool
developers list.

	Henrik

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:19:12 -0800

On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
> (More desirable would be to validate that the LASTNAME (draft- 
> LASTNAME-*) matches one of the author's last names, but this is  
> difficult with non-US-ASCII last names, draft-manyfolks-*, and  
> compound last names ("Mac Manas" could legitimately be either  
> macmanas or mac-manus.  Thus, validating there isn't a collision  
> with existing working groups could be useful and easier to implement.)

we have loosely followed the following convention for some time:

     draft-ietf-<wg>-<stuff>-<nn>.<filetype>     working group draft
     draft-<author>-<wg>-<stuff>-<nn>.<filetype> personal submission  
to working group
     draft-<author>-<stuff>-<nn>.<filetype>      "other"

Following that rubric, we today have 705 working group drafts in 121  
working groups or BOF topics, 677 individual submissions to working  
groups or BOF topics, and 462 "other" drafts.

One thing we might consider here is to in some way determine the  
intent of the poster. If it falls into either of the first two  
categories, and in the first category is on the list the WG chair  
authorized, it's kind of a done deal. If it is of the third category,  
it might be of value to ask the submitter who s/he would like to  
review it. It may be that the answer is "6man and v6ops", in which  
case leaving the WG name off but posting an ID-posting announcement  
to both lists would make sense. If the answer is a given WG,  
answering "please encode the name as draft-<author>-<wg>-<stuff>- 
<nn>.<filetype>" would make sense. And if the answer really is  
"general", so be it, post the thing.

Next question: what problem does that solve?

For me as a WG chair, it is a convenient organizing principle: if the  
convention is followed, I know for sure which drafts are mine to  
worry about. I enforce the usage pretty mildly - if someone writes  
"I'd like to discuss draft-carpenter-shanti and draft-van-beijnum- 
modified-nat-pt in v6ops this week", I'm OK with that. Reason: well,  
maybe they weren't sure whether it belonged in v6ops, 6man, or  
something else. In the particular cases here, my charter precludes  
picking it up in v6ops, so the authors can be forgiven for not  
knowing where to direct their documents. But in general, I'd like to  
be able to go to the ID tracker, enter "v6ops", and get a summary of  
stuff on my plate.

For me as a contributor to various activities, it doesn't solve any  
problem at all.

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:19:40 -0800

> > Recently, 
> draft-sipping-stucker-media-path-middleboxes-00.txt was posted using

Thanks!
-d

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:19:38 +0100

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:47 +0100

> Next question: what problem does that solve?
[...]
> For me as a contributor to various activities, it doesn't solve
> any problem at all.

It would be nice if announcements are copied to the relevant list,
for your second set that has to be confirmed by the submitter (the
tool isn't very smart at guessing), for your third set a submitter
needs a way to specify what "relevant list" is.  Of course a Cc:
might never make it if list owners don't permit this.

 Frank

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:45:13 -0800

On Dec 18, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Of course a Cc:

on would hope that certain sources are listed as posters without  
being receivers...

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:23:33 +0100

Re-posting this as the last post was PGP encrypted.  Sorry 'bout that.

----

More good suggestions; I've forwarded these to the submission tool
developers list, too.

	Henrik