Subject: [Tools-team] Review of draft-ietf-tools-draft-info-03

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:00:52 +0100

Hi Alex,

Some comments on the draft:

Section 4., para. 6:

>    WG draft: A draft for which identifier (a.k.a. filename) is known and
>       starts with "draft-ietf-".  [[XXX4: This definition may need to be
>       changed.  In fact, we may be able to simply refer to the "current
>       IETF definition" here because this document does not care what are
>       the IETF rules for determining WG drafts!  If referring to the
>       "current IETF definition" is a good idea, what document should we
>       refer to?  Do we have to refer to any specific document? --Alex]]

	Currently, I'm not sure whether there exist _one_ formal
 	specification of what is a WG draft.  I guess we could elevate one of
 	the resources listed below, e.g., [4], to be the authoritative source
 	of this information.

Section 6., para. 7:

>    Addition information such as a link to the "IESG draft discussion"
>    tracking page, may be available but is outside of this document
>    scope.

	Umm - I think we should include this particular piece of information.
 	For workgroup drafts, it's vital for outsiders who wish to comment,
 	and for individual drafts, it's helpful to point to the authors' email
 	addresses.

Section 6.2., para. 10:

>    o  "obsoletes X", "renamed to X", or "replaced by X" statements where
>       "X" is a draft, RFC, or another document.

	Also "updates X"
 	as for other information, what about
 	:
 	o document retrieval URL ?

Section 6.2., para. 13:

>    [[XXX3: Should we list any fields that are meant-to-be extractable
>    from the latest draft version?  For example: creation date,
>    expiration date, IPR boilerplate, formal references, required
>    sections, etc. --Alex]]

	Hmm.  I'd say yes to the datestamp, no to the rest of these...

Section 6.2.1., para. 2:

>    An active or expired draft can be in one or more states related to
>    IESG review activity.  These states are not documented here, but
>    implementations must provide this information using the current state
>    list and state definitions maintained by IESG.

	I think that this is only true for active drafts now.  Being under
 	IESG consideration now prevents a draft from expiring.

Section 7.2., para. 4:

>    o  nits (Section 7.2.3)

	Not sure if the nits belong here.  They are the result of applying
 	external rules on the draft presentation format, and the external
 	rules may change during the lifetime of a version.

Section 7.2.3., para. 3:

>    [[XXX7: Should nits contain information about the tool that was used
>    to generate each(?) nit?  Including the version of the tool? --Alex]]

	If nits are included, they should contain tool identifier and tool
 	version, yes.
 
>    [[XXX8: Should we standardize nits reporting?  At least to the level
>    of distinguishing warnings from errors? --Alex]]

	The tool currently explicitly reports an error count and a warning
 	count, so if that's enough, it's already in place for the current
 	tool.

Section 7.4., para. 1:

>    A set of format identifiers (see Section 8.1) representing all
>    available draft version formats.  [[XXX10: Can formats be added or
>    deleted after the draft is posted?  That is, what does "available"
>    mean here? --Alex]]

	Humm.  I think that the available formats may change.  I've been
 	considering doing or getting someone else to do a TXT to XML
 	converter - I think that might be doable - and if it works well, it
 	would be possible to render other formats from the resulting XML.
 	In addition to this, I currently provide html-ified and PDF-ified
 	editions of the text version.

Section 8.1., para. 6:

>    [[XXX9: Should we standardize format IDs or will they depend on the
>    draft information encoding mechanism?  For example, Atom draft event
>    feeds may use format IDs different from those used by the IETF draft
>    repository. --Alex]]

	Humm.  To be honest, I'm not sure.  Maybe leave that for now.

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