Subject: [Tools-team] policy flexibility, checking for errors even if not cause for rejection

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:44:55 -0800

I think we (tools team) should be careful to separate
'policy' from 'implementation'.

Some statements, do you disagree with any of these:

* Which documents are accepted or rejected is a matter
  of policy.

* The internet drafts submission tool MUST check
  documents and reject those that are not acceptable
  according to accepted policy.

* The internet drafts submission tool SHOULD also
  check documents for additional potential errors
  that might cause additional problems, and warn
  the submitter, even if the document is accepted.

* Different formats may have different validity
  and checking criteria, depending upon available
  technology for checking.

* We should encourage authors to check for all errors,
  even when we will accept documents with some
  kinds of errors.

* The boundary of which errors cause rejection and
  which cause warnings should be flexible, so that
  in the future, it can be possible to change the
  policy.

Larry

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:22:10 +0100

>   in the future, it can be possible to change the

Excellent analysis, in my eyes.  I'd like to have this added
to the draft, provided we have consensus.

	Henrik

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 17:39:01 -0500

> Some statements, do you disagree with any of these:

I agree with all of the statements.

> * We should encourage authors to check for all errors,
                                                       ^ ``and warnings''?

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

Antibiotics comprise 2% of cow feed in U.S. feedlots, by weight.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:29:14 -0700

> * Which documents are accepted or rejected is a matter

Yes. It is also a matter of a particular implementation. Some IETF  
policies cannot be reliably enforced by a computer. We cannot (and should  
not try to) design a tool that correctly enforces all IETF policies in  
scope. IETF should not have an illusion that the tool (or the Secretariat)  
is a perfect policy enforcer, and IETF should have mechanisms to deal with  
their mistakes.

>   according to accepted policy.

I agree with the intent, but since it is technically impossible to  
reliably identify many policy violations, this is not a MUST that any tool  
can satisfy. The "check" part is satisfiable, but the "reject those that  
..." part is not. Perhaps you meant "reject those that failed the checks"?

>   the submitter, even if the document is accepted.

I agree with the intent. The exact wording needs to be polished to include  
a list of "additional potential errors" or some other way for implementors  
to comply and testers to test.

>   and checking criteria, depending upon available

Yes, although checking technology should not be the driving force for  
criteria. Criteria should be based primarily on format properties. The  
technology will catch up, eventually.

>   even when we will accept documents with some

Encouraging "to check for all errors" is almost useless, IMO. IETF should  
provide tools (in addition to human review) to detect errors.

FWIW, in the ID Submission draft, "acceptable errors" are called  
"warnings".

>   in the future, it can be possible to change the

If by "boundary" you mean the "tool", then I agree. The tool should be  
flexible to accommodate policy changes. Unfortunately, this is not  
something we can test; we have to rely on IETF to select skillful  
implementors that build flexible tools.

Please do not get angry. I get picky when it comes to formally stating  
implementation requirements!

Alex.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:38:26 -0700

On Fri, 2004/11/19 (MST), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'd like to have this added to the draft, provided we have consensus.

We probably have consensus with regard to intent. When/if specific  
requirements are polished, I would be happy to add those that are in scope  
to the ID Submissions draft. I suspect many are already there!

Alex.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:58:16 +0100

> * Which documents are accepted or rejected is a matter

Agree.
>   according to accepted policy.

If you add "as far as reasonable", I agree. There are requirements (such as 
"must not contain conflicting copyright statements in addition to the 
mandated ones") that can't be checked for mechanically. A 
notify-and-takedown procedure for untestable requirement violation should 
be part of the overall procedure.

>   the submitter, even if the document is accepted.

Agree.
>   and checking criteria, depending upon available

Agree.
>   even when we will accept documents with some

Agree.
>   in the future, it can be possible to change the

Agree.