Subject: [Tools-discuss] Charter diff feature

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:47:31 +0200

Hi there,

Each time there is a new charter discussion, I want to compare the new 
charter proposal with the charter currently used in the WG. However, I 
sometimes see a mismatch in the version.

Let's take an example
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-jose/history/
In the From field, I have the choice between 2013-04-08, 2013-03-22, and 
2011-09-21.
When I check the current WG charter at 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/charters, I see 2012-08-01

Can you please help.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:11:43 +0000

Exists on the tools pages, e.g.

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/charter-rmcat-2013-03-13.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/charter-rmcat-2013-04-09.txt

Lars

On Apr 11, 2013, at 14:47, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> Each time there is a new charter discussion, I want to compare the new charter proposal with the charter currently used in the WG. However, I sometimes see a mismatch in the version.
> 
> Let's take an example
> In the From field, I have the choice between 2013-04-08, 2013-03-22, and 2011-09-21.
> When I check the current WG charter at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/charters, I see 2012-08-01
> 
> Can you please help.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:16:22 +0200

Lars,

Yes, but what I want is a diff with 2012-08-01, which appears to be the 
one the WG uses right now according to 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/charters

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:45:53 +0200

> In the From field, I have the choice between 2013-04-08, 2013-03-22, and

It looks to me as if it is actually the same charter?

My guess is that the tools server and the Datatracker database has a
different idea of the timestamp for that charter for some reason. We
did an import when the charter tool went up - the details escape me,
but I think the Datatracker timestamp is probably the correct one in
this case.

In any case, charters actually have official sequential revision
numbers now rather than the timestamps.

Ole

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:15:19 +0200

> numbers now rather than the timestamps.
Thanks, that's the trick: focus on the charter revision, and not the dates.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:37:17 -0400

> Thanks, that's the trick: focus on the charter revision, and not the dates.

Further follow-up:
The confusing dates come from the fact that changes that the
Secretariat makes that do not affect the charter text (changes to
milestones or chairs, for example) cause a "new" charter to appear on
the tools WG charter page, though they don't cause a new charter
version to appear in the datatracker.

Barry

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:22:50 +0200

> version to appear in the datatracker.
As an improvement, we could delete the (confusing) dates, and focus only 
on the versions.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:39:40 -0400

> As an improvement, we could delete the (confusing) dates, and focus only on
> the versions.

But it's useful to be able to go back through the charter history and
see the dates that the milestones and chairs were changed.

I think that once people get used to how the version numbering works,
this won't be so much of a problem as it is now.  We might also
consider including the charter version numbers, and/or otherwise
highlight changes to the charter text (maybe make the dates "bold"
when they coincide with a charter text/version change).

b