Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Re: Fwd: draft-ymbk-lta-use-cases-00.txt

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:44:08 +0900

be this true?  if so, sure came as a surprise to me.

randy

Subject: Re: Fwd: draft-ymbk-lta-use-cases-00.txt
To: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:42:31 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Randy Bush wrote:

>> My guess: because the third element of the filename is something other
>> than "sidr".  I think the related drafts list is automatically
>> generated, and I don't see a way for me/us to manually add a document
>> to it.  This question is probably better directed at the tools team
>> than WG chairs.
>
> this is a bit of arcana.

Fair.  I wondered, as I wrote that reply, if this is actually 
documented anywhere.  I think the naming convention is just a 
tradition that the tools team latched onto ("Hey, wouldn't it be 
helpful if we grabbed all of these pre-WG docs?"), and now the tools 
reinforce the tradition.

Write to them.  See if that's what it is, and encourage documentation.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:54:39 +0100

Hi Randy,

> be this true?  if so, sure came as a surprise to me.

My reference is Section 7 of http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt ,
in particular the description of ID filename components 2 and 3.

But yes, it's also the case that I at some point in time said "Right, it
might be useful for people if I filtered on the 3rd name part and presented
that as related documents for a WG".

	Henrik

> ForwardedMessage.eml
> -- Tools-discuss mailing list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or send email to [email-masked]
>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:58:42 -0500

> that as related documents for a WG".

This is a useful feature and there are some chairs that encourage ID
authors to name drafts accordingly.

What would perhaps be useful is to add a link (or explanation) to the
heading "related active documents ..." that explains that the list is
generated entirely from the ID name, and that it may not be complete
or accurate. I.e., partly to explain to folk how the list is generated
and is thus just a convention/hueristic while also explaining what
folk should do if they want their ID to appear in the list...

Thomas

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:58:56 +0900

yes, i probably read 

   3.  Document name.  For non-working group documents that are targeted
       at a working group, this string often begins with the working
       group abbreviation.  This document name is a word or two that
       reflect what the draft is about.

in 1938.  but how was i to infer that 'often begins' became magic in the
21st century?

i guess it's cool if one knows about it.  thanks.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:02:08 +0900

> folk should do if they want their ID to appear in the list...

i would think that the wg page maintainers would be able to add
documents to that section which did not have magic names.  it is
"related documents" not "magically named documents," and i can envision,
for example, the foo wg thinking a bar wg document was related.  but i
think the bikeshed really should be magenta.

randy

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:06:07 -0500

> think the bikeshed really should be magenta.

:-)

One other problem with "related documents" is that I can think of more
than a few documents that authors would claim are related to 1/2 dozen
WGs or more... Could quickly get out of hand...

Thomas

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:43:32 -0500

>> think the bikeshed really should be magenta.
...
> WGs or more... Could quickly get out of hand...

It could, but that's where it would be nice if the chairs could
control it.  It's fine for the default to be that documents with the
wgname as the third token are put in the list by default, but it would
be really nice if the chairs could:
1. add other documents that they consider to be related, not requiring
the authors to artificially rename the doc and *allowing* a doc to be
related to more than one WG, and
2. toss docs out of that list -- just because an author wants it to be
related doesn't always make it so.

Barry