headers
Ed Jankiewicz | 25 Aug 23:15
Favicon

draft name changes

just for the suggestion box, I'm sure it overfloweth...

for the IETF Documents tool, consider adding a link when a draft name 
changes (e.g. an individual draft is adopted as a working group item), 
similar to the link from a draft to its publication as an RFC.  It would 
be nice to see that 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard-01 didn't 
just expire, but lived on as 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-00 for example.

--

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz <at> sri.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Henrik Levkowetz | 31 Aug 21:22

Re: draft name changes

Hi Ed,

On 2008-08-25 23:19 Ed Jankiewicz said the following:
> just for the suggestion box, I'm sure it overfloweth...

Oh, the suggesion box is doing fine, it's the pending box which is the
big problem...

> for the IETF Documents tool, consider adding a link when a draft name 
> changes (e.g. an individual draft is adopted as a working group item), 
> similar to the link from a draft to its publication as an RFC.  It would 
> be nice to see that 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard-01 didn't 
> just expire, but lived on as 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-00 for example.

Right, good point and good idea.  One problem is that there's a lot of
missing information about which document replaces which.  I'm going to
try to synthethisise that using Lars Eggert's idea -- should have put
that in place some time ago, but no time...

Anyway.  I've added this now, and the replaced-by links should appear if
the replaced-by information is available.

Best,

	Henrik
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Julian Reschke | 31 Aug 22:02

Re: draft name changes

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Right, good point and good idea.  One problem is that there's a lot of
> missing information about which document replaces which.  I'm going to
> try to synthethisise that using Lars Eggert's idea -- should have put
> that in place some time ago, but no time...
> 
> Anyway.  I've added this now, and the replaced-by links should appear if
> the replaced-by information is available.

Would it be useful if the xml2rfc format captured that information somehow?

BR, Julian
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Henrik Levkowetz | 31 Aug 23:53

Re: draft name changes

Hi Julian,

On 2008-08-31 22:02 Julian Reschke said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Right, good point and good idea.  One problem is that there's a lot of
>> missing information about which document replaces which.  I'm going to
>> try to synthethisise that using Lars Eggert's idea -- should have put
>> that in place some time ago, but no time...
>>
>> Anyway.  I've added this now, and the replaced-by links should appear if
>> the replaced-by information is available.
> 
> Would it be useful if the xml2rfc format captured that information somehow?

Mmm.  I'm not sure.

The intention has been that when we have Bill's rewrite of the draft
submission tool deployed, we should consider adding fields in the form
to capture information like this.  

Capturing it in the xml2rfc format would mostly be appropriate if xml2rfc
also had an option to render it in a standard way in the draft itself.
For drafts which are submitted with an accompanying xml file it would be
possible to pre-populate the replaced-by field in the submission meta-data
verification page based on a replaced-by indication in the xml file, but
it would never be a complete solution which could do away with the form
field.  So once the metadata verification page of the submission tool has
a field for 'replaced-by', having it also in the .xml file would make
things a bit easier for xml2rfc users.  Before then I think it would not
make a big difference, I think.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Morin | 1 Sep 16:11

Re: draft name changes

Henrik Levkowetz :
> Hi Julian,
> 
> On 2008-08-31 22:02 Julian Reschke said the following:
> >
> > Would it be useful if the xml2rfc format captured that information somehow?

I would support this.

> Mmm.  I'm not sure.
> 
> The intention has been that when we have Bill's rewrite of the draft
> submission tool deployed, we should consider adding fields in the form
> to capture information like this.  
> 
> Capturing it in the xml2rfc format would mostly be appropriate if xml2rfc
> also had an option to render it in a standard way in the draft itself.
> For drafts which are submitted with an accompanying xml file it would be
> possible to pre-populate the replaced-by field in the submission meta-data
> verification page based on a replaced-by indication in the xml file, but
> it would never be a complete solution which could do away with the form
> field.  So once the metadata verification page of the submission tool has
> a field for 'replaced-by', having it also in the .xml file would make
> things a bit easier for xml2rfc users.  Before then I think it would not
> make a big difference, I think.

If, at some point, it makes it easier for xml2rfc users, then wouldn't
it be nice to work on a such new field today ?

Also, independently of the submission tool, adding this type of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Morin | 1 Sep 16:18

Re: draft name changes

Henrik Levkowetz :
> So once the metadata verification page of the submission tool has
> a field for 'replaced-by'.

By the way the submission tool field has to be named in terms of "draft
being replaced: " rather than "replaced by", or that will certainly
cause some confusion (usability nitpicking).

Cheers,

-Thomas
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Henrik Levkowetz | 1 Sep 16:56

Re: draft name changes


On 2008-09-01 16:18 Thomas Morin said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz :
>> So once the metadata verification page of the submission tool has
>> a field for 'replaced-by'.
> 
> By the way the submission tool field has to be named in terms of "draft
> being replaced: " rather than "replaced by", or that will certainly
> cause some confusion (usability nitpicking).

Quite so.

	Henrik
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 3 Sep 08:02

Re: draft name changes

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> The question made me start to wonder how large a percentage
> of drafts are now being submitted with an accompanying .xml
> file, and a quick check gave a figure of about 28% for 2008
> to date.  The distribution of .xml, .txt and .pdf drafts
> over the years were as follows a moment ago, according to
> the archive on one of the tools servers:

[...]
[xml] 
>    1440 Tota 
>   480.0 Aver  33% =============================

[...]
[txt]
>   50478 Tota 
>  2969.3 Aver   5% ===================================

[...]
[pdf]
>     311 Tota 
>    44.4 Aver  14% =======================================

Lies, damned lies, statistics.  I'm mystified, what does
this mean ?  95% of all users somehow managed to submit
Internet-Drafts without the required TXT (5%) versions ?
And for what purpose do they submit PDF (14%) versions ?

 Frank
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Henrik Levkowetz | 3 Sep 11:00

Re: draft name changes

Hi Frank,

On 2008-09-03 08:02 Frank Ellermann said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
>> The question made me start to wonder how large a percentage
>> of drafts are now being submitted with an accompanying .xml
>> file, and a quick check gave a figure of about 28% for 2008
>> to date.  The distribution of .xml, .txt and .pdf drafts
>> over the years were as follows a moment ago, according to
>> the archive on one of the tools servers:
> 
> [...]
> [xml] 
>>    1440 Tota 
>>   480.0 Aver  33% =============================
> 
> [...]
> [txt]
>>   50478 Tota 
>>  2969.3 Aver   5% ===================================
> 
> [...]
> [pdf]
>>     311 Tota 
>>    44.4 Aver  14% =======================================
> 
> Lies, damned lies, statistics.  I'm mystified, what does
> this mean ?  95% of all users somehow managed to submit
> Internet-Drafts without the required TXT (5%) versions ?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 7 Sep 04:04

Re: draft name changes

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

 [33- 5 - 14] 
> Ignore the 14% -- it just means that there were 
> 7 years in the input.

LOL, I completely missed the point, thanks for info.

 Frank
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Hansen | 1 Sep 02:40
Favicon

Re: draft name changes

IMO, the internet-drafts upload tool should be capturing this information.

If you put in a name that ends in -00 and it's a draft-ietf name, it
should practically require the name of the I-D that is being replaced.
It's fairly probable that a WG document will have starte as a personal doc.

It's not just -00's that can replace other docs. I've had several docs
where a couple different drafts by different authors were merged into
one of the document streams.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Right, good point and good idea.  One problem is that there's a lot of
>> missing information about which document replaces which.  I'm going to
>> try to synthethisise that using Lars Eggert's idea -- should have put
>> that in place some time ago, but no time...
>>
>> Anyway.  I've added this now, and the replaced-by links should appear if
>> the replaced-by information is available.
> 
> Would it be useful if the xml2rfc format captured that information somehow?
> 
> BR, Julian
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jari Arkko | 1 Sep 09:16

Re: draft name changes

Tony,

> IMO, the internet-drafts upload tool should be capturing this information.
>   

Yes.

> If you put in a name that ends in -00 and it's a draft-ietf name, it
> should practically require the name of the I-D that is being replaced.
> It's fairly probable that a WG document will have starte as a personal doc.
>   

Right.

Jari
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Spencer Dawkins | 1 Sep 14:24

Re: draft name changes

>> IMO, the internet-drafts upload tool should be capturing this 
>> information.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>> If you put in a name that ends in -00 and it's a draft-ietf name, it
>> should practically require the name of the I-D that is being replaced.
>> It's fairly probable that a WG document will have starte as a personal 
>> doc.
>>
>
> Right.

I'm bridling because of "practically require", and I'll grant that 
"practically require" could reasonably be:

   "Enter the name of the individual draft(s) being replaced:
      (or "none" if this working group draft has no predecessor drafts)"

But - individual draft NAMES -> working group draft NAMES is certainly most 
common practice, but please DON'T require a name of the I-D that's being 
replaced, because our WG BCPs do not require WG documents to start as a 
personal doc, and I have seen WG documents that sprang fully formed from 
thin air.

Another case where ALMOST everyone does something, but our WG BCPs don't 
require it - a lot of people are surprised that WGLC is not required by WG 
BCPs, either...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Henrik Levkowetz | 1 Sep 15:01

Re: draft name changes


On 2008-09-01 14:24 Spencer Dawkins said the following:

> I'm bridling because of "practically require", and I'll grant that 
> "practically require" could reasonably be:
> 
>    "Enter the name of the individual draft(s) being replaced:
>       (or "none" if this working group draft has no predecessor drafts)"

...

> My views of how badly most of our process BCPs need to be updated is no 
> secret, but evolving our processes via tool design is not the way we should 
> be going.

I agree.  If there are obvious ways for tools to make it easy to 'do the
right thing', that's fine, but they shouldn't pre-empt the decision process
and institute policy which hasn't been agreed and decided upon (by whichever
process we have).

	Henrik


_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Morin | 1 Sep 16:00

Re: draft name changes

In the same line of thinking (making it easy to do the right thing
without enforcing any new processes), it seems to me that it would make
sense to allow a WG draft to have *more than one* precursor individual
drafts. 

Indeed, there are cases where a WG draft results from the "merger" of
individual drafts aiming at solving the same issue, or proposing very
similar solutions.  Forcing to state zero or one precursor would force
author to settle for zero (loss of information) or to arbitrarily choose
one of the precursors (the latter being possibly difficult if the merger
resulted from a non obvious consensus).

-Thomas

Henrik Levkowetz :
> 
> On 2008-09-01 14:24 Spencer Dawkins said the following:
> 
> > I'm bridling because of "practically require", and I'll grant that 
> > "practically require" could reasonably be:
> > 
> >    "Enter the name of the individual draft(s) being replaced:
> >       (or "none" if this working group draft has no predecessor drafts)"
> 
> ...
> 
> > My views of how badly most of our process BCPs need to be updated is no 
> > secret, but evolving our processes via tool design is not the way we should 
> > be going.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Hansen | 1 Sep 19:47
Favicon

Re: draft name changes

Thomas Morin wrote:
> In the same line of thinking (making it easy to do the right thing
> without enforcing any new processes), it seems to me that it would make
> sense to allow a WG draft to have *more than one* precursor individual
> drafts. 

+1

Note: it's not just WG drafts, but also individual drafts that can have
more than one precursor individual draft.

There's also the case of individual drafts starting as WG drafts and
turning individual when a WG decides (or is forced) to disband.

Another twist that could be captured is when a draft is split apart into
multiple drafts.

The taxonomy progresses in many ways.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jari Arkko | 1 Sep 17:07

Re: draft name changes

I did not mean to imply that you have to give an individual draft name 
as the predecessor of the wg-00 draft. But I do want that question to be 
asked upon submission time.

Jari (who has sent in countless mails to the secretary to add a history 
link between drafts)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Hansen | 1 Sep 19:40
Favicon

Re: draft name changes

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
> I'm bridling because of "practically require", and I'll grant that 
> "practically require" could reasonably be:
> 
>    "Enter the name of the individual draft(s) being replaced:
>       (or "none" if this working group draft has no predecessor drafts)"

Spencer, this is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. It
requires you to think about the question and provide an answer one way
or another.

> But - individual draft NAMES -> working group draft NAMES is certainly most 
> common practice, but please DON'T require a name of the I-D that's being 
> replaced, because our WG BCPs do not require WG documents to start as a 
> personal doc, and I have seen WG documents that sprang fully formed from 
> thin air.

Exactly why it can't be "require". There's *always* an exception and
whatever we put in to place *must* allow for such exceptions.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane