Subject: [Tools-team] comments on Submissions Interface tools draft

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:20:25 -0700

The section "Tools Status Quo" seems to actually mix
a description of the "Status Quo" with some analysis
and recommendations. I'd suggest just renaming it
  "Tool Status Quo" => "Current state"

  "asking to publish the draft" => "asking that the draft be posted"

The sections starting with 

  "Informal interface for submitting and publishing..."

seem to be analysis rather than description, and are
somewhat controversial. I think we need to examine
them carefully.

For example:

   Anybody and anything can submit a draft for publication.  There is no
   reliable authentication mechanism.  Initial submissions of WG drafts
   require WG Chair approval, which is as easy to fake as the submission
   request itself.

While email comes from anywhere, the
I-D submission email address can distinguish spam
from actual submissions, and the fact that there is
a person in the loop discourages fraud. Similarly,
may not be so easy to 'fake' WG chair approval, because
the checking for WG chair approval isn't automated --
a person actually reads it and decides, based on the
message content, that it comes from the WG chair.

In any case, I would put these paragraphs in another
section, labeled "analysis of current state" rather than
under "Status Quo".

I'd like a section on "wish list items": things that
would be nice, even if they're not requirements.

I would include in this the ability to accept and
to have posted the XML version of Internet Drafts.
This is something that's hard to do with the manual
process currently but would become easier if the
process were automated.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net

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

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:54:51 -0600 (MDT)

Larry,

 	Thanks a lot for the comments! I will do my best to accommodate 
most of them, but I would lile to discuss a few specific issues below.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Larry Masinter wrote:

> While email comes from anywhere, the I-D submission email address 
> can distinguish spam from actual submissions, and the fact that 
> there is a person in the loop discourages fraud. Similarly, may not 
> be so easy to 'fake' WG chair approval, because the checking for WG 
> chair approval isn't automated -- a person actually reads it and 
> decides, based on the message content, that it comes from the WG 
> chair.

I agree with you, but I also believe the above quoted text accurately 
represents the reality. That is, what you are saying does not seem to 
contradict the text. A "person in the loop discourages fraud", but 
"anybody and anything can submit a draft for publication". It "may not 
be so easy to 'fake' WG chair approval", but WG Chair approval is "as 
easy to fake as the submission request itself."

My intent here is to document the authentication mechanism currently 
in place so that our proposals can be compared to what is being used 
right now. We need to know whether we are improving the situation with 
the new toolset.

> In any case, I would put these paragraphs in another section, 
> labeled "analysis of current state" rather than under "Status Quo".

Let me take one more shot at it, please. I will remove the "easy" 
adjective/bias since the rest of the paragraph seems to be stating 
facts rather than providing analysis. I will revise the other 
paragraphs accordingly for the next version as well. If you still 
think they are biased, we will then decide whether to move, relabel, 
or delete them.

> would be nice, even if they're not requirements.

Those are SHOULDs and MAYs in the current scheme of things. A separate 
section would be awkward because it would lack the current per-mode 
and other classifications of requirements.

I am sure there are many good features not mentioned in the draft. If 
you have a wish list item not currently in the draft, please post and 
let's discuss whether it is worth mentioning explicitly.

> I would include in this the ability to accept and to have posted the 
> XML version of Internet Drafts. This is something that's hard to do 
> with the manual process currently but would become easier if the 
> process were automated.

I was going to put something like "accept all draft formats approved 
by IETF", thinking that what formats to accept is beyond this draft 
scope. My understanding is that RFC Editor already accepts XML sources 
(but not as a primary format?).

IMO, we should discuss XML acceptance separately, as there are many 
problems with it. For example, most authors are not using RFC 2629 
since xml2rfc supports more than just RFC 2629 and xml2rfc 
support/output varies from version to version...

Thanks,

Alex.