Subject: Re: [Tools-team] Draft submission authentication

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:43:06 +0200

Allison Mankin wrote:

>>  ... But as doing diffs is infeasible if you don't
>>have the previous version, and having a line of diffs will let you 
>>reconstruct expired drafts, we may need IESG sanction to set up 
>>such a mechanism, even if we don't change the working of the regular
>>draft repository.
> 
> 
> I do see that.  So my suggestion to Alex in my response to him was to
> have an explicit experimental process, using the "July 14" approach,
> acknowledging that there's a partial archive involved.

Right.

...

>>>P.S. about post-approval:  some working groups have been editor-driven
>>>     or laissez faire so that the 00 is submitted and the working group
>>>     and chair have not been well aware.  It used to be more common; 
>>>     there were problem working group chairs in CCAMP to give you one
>>>     example where you can see a huge number of i-ds due to this
>>>     phenomenon.
>>
>>I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here - we're not even considering
>>sanctioning a -00 that has been posted without proper approval - when we
>>talk about post-approval, it's the case where a draft which has been 
>>properly accepted by the WG as a WG draft is submitted, an approval request
>>is sent to the chair, and the chair OK's it -- as opposed to the case where
>>the chair registers approval before the sumbission is done, and no 
>>additional approval request needs to be sent.
>>
>>If I've misunderstood and mistakenly thought there might be a 
>>misunderstanding at your end, I apologise :-)  and instead wonder if
>>you might clarify.
>>
> 
> I didn't mean to say you were sanctioning unapproved -00's, but rather
> I was pointing out that the current process/system has no checks on whether
> the WG has adopted them (or that they're chartered).  If the WG Chair is not
> careful/scrupulous, the system is in trouble.  IETF likes to add a lot of sunshine
> to such situations, so I think what might be good to see is a WG tracker that 
> tracks how individual drafts are adopted by the working group, verified by
> the AD as within the charter (or added to the charter) and then approved 
> as 00 items.  Currently may not even be documentation of the WG adoption.

Ah, Ok, I see your point now.  That makes the pre-approval approach
look like the one we want to keep, as it will fit better into a WG tracker
tool.  Thanks.

> P.P.S. I'm back, but now I'll be mainly offline again for the next few days...
> for some travel for my day job.

Ok.  If you feel like it and have the time, you'r welcome to the conference
call today.  I'll send details separately.

	Henrik

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