Subject: [proto-team] Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:46:42 +0100

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Cutting to the chase:
>
> > How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
>
> See whether draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-01.txt
> covers what you want. If not, immediately would be
> a very good time to tell the PROTO team.
>
>     Brian
>
Since Brian asked for it...

section 3.1: What is the value of the "WG state" variable when:

- the document is an individual contribution
- the document is in IESG processing
- the document is in the RFC Editor's queue?

It is fine if the answer is "WG state irrelevant", but then "WG state 
irrelevant" needs to be added to the state list.

I'm assuming that the document is in state "Exists" or "AD is watching" 
when it is in one of the states where the WG state is relevant.

The document doesn't say that WG chairs are able to add entries to the 
comment log - was this thought "too obvious to mention"?

The document does not say which state transitions a WG chair or document 
shepherd should be able to trigger, there's just section 2 bullet 3 
saying which transitions they should not be able to trigger - is this 
thought to be "we'll make it up as we go along"?

BTW: that sentence uses "not all users" to mean "IESG only", I think. 
There are lots of users of the tracker who are not WG chairs or proto 
shepherds.

I'm fine with the implied decision in section 2 bullet 2 to treat 
"chairs" as a group, meaning that any chair can change the state of any 
document in any WG. I think logging changes and who makes them is enough 
to deal with the hypothetical possibility of abuse - if abuse ever 
happens, we'll fire the offending chair/shepherd and change the states back.

That's all on a quick scan....

                       Harald

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:50:10 +0100

Hi Harald,

> - the document is an individual contribution

"Not a WG Document"

> - the document is in IESG processing

Hmm.  I was thinking "Active WG Document", but with the
explanation of this state currently in the draft, this
doesn't fit.  I think we should add a state for this.
What about "Completed WG Document", or "Submitted WG Document" ?

> - the document is in the RFC Editor's queue?

As above.  I.e., no distinction in the WG state once the
document is out of the WG's hands.

> irrelevant" needs to be added to the state list.

Agreed.  But as indicated above, I'd like to split this into the
two states "Not a WG Document" and "Submitted WG Document" (or
whatever they should be called).

> when it is in one of the states where the WG state is relevant.

That would be the case for "Not a WG Document", but not for "Submitted
WG Document", no?

> comment log - was this thought "too obvious to mention"?

No.  Good point.  Should the WG chairs have this access right?

> thought to be "we'll make it up as we go along"?

Since the tracker in general doesn't verify or control state transitions,
I've seen this as a matter of 'what isn't restricted is possible'. I'm
not sure we want to build in more smartness in the tracker for this
(at least until we have some experience with the new usage).

> There are lots of users of the tracker who are not WG chairs or proto 

Good point.  What about:

OLD:
   o  Identification of the actions and information which may not be
      accessed by all users (R-002).  Such actions and information will
      be called 'restricted features' in the following.  Some known
      restricted features are:

NEW:
   o  Identification of the actions and information which may require
      verification of the user's access rights (R-002).  Such actions
      and information will be called 'restricted features' in the

> That's all on a quick scan....

Thanks!

	Henrik

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:20:14 +0100

> whatever they should be called).
Looks good to me.
> That would be the case for "Not a WG Document", but not for "Submitted
Right. I was not thinking clearly here.
> No.  Good point.  Should the WG chairs have this access right?
Yes, otherwise the WG state annotation tag "Other - see Comment Log" 
makes no sense.
Besides, it is ALWAYS good to be able to add comments.
> (at least until we have some experience with the new usage).
We started out this way, and I'm happy to see it continue.
>       following.  Some known restricted features are:
works for me. The document doesn't say who it's restricted to, but that 
can vary.

Somewhere, we should probably say that the public still has no 
authorization for changes; "unrestricted" features are still restricted 
to only those people who are authorized on the system.

Hope to remember to look at -02 when it comes out - what's the open 
mailing list on which this is being discussed? document doesn't say....

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:14:17 +0100

Hi Harald,

I've updated my source, with a first rev. towards a -02 available
here as -02.a:

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext/index.pyht

This has the following changes:

on 2007-01-09 16:20 Harald Alvestrand said the following:
...    
>> whatever they should be called).

Ok. Added a new state, provisionally called "Submitted WG Document",
with explanation.

> Besides, it is ALWAYS good to be able to add comments.

Ok. Added clarification of this in Section 2, bullet 3.

> works for me. The document doesn't say who it's restricted to, but that 

Replacement made.

> to only those people who are authorized on the system.

Added clarification of this point in Section 1, Introduction.

> mailing list on which this is being discussed? document doesn't say....

Hmm.  This would be the proto-team list, but I haven't verified that
it's open.

	Henrik