Subject: Test version of the Parking Area

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:30:19 +0200

What's the Parking Area? It's the list of all drafts that have been
approved by the IESG but are not yet published as RFCs.

You can find the test version at

http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking

There's also a link to it off the IETF Chair's page at

http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/

Thanks to Bill Fenner for putting this together. Comments on the principle
or the test implementation are welcome.

    Brian Carpenter

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:53:18 +0200

> http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking

Test results:  all I get are various site errors.
Please delete the dummy user "ietf" (didn't help)

              Bye, Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:58:01 +0200

How embarassing. The link worked yesterday but is broken
today. Well,it *is* a test. I'm sure Bill will fix it shortly.

     Brian

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:55:10 -0400

It should be working now.  (The danger of running on live data - when
it changes in unanticipated ways, the page breaks!)

  Bill

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:18:32 -0500

Dear Brian and Bill,

Thanks for providing this!

Is this (239-element) table sorted? I might suggest "sorted by ID name 
within WG", but any sort would be a good thing to provide.

Thanks for making it available,

Spencer

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:34:16 -0400

>within WG", but any sort would be a good thing to provide.

It's sorted by document approval date.  I'll point that out in the
header and look into making other optional sorts available.

  Bill

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:21:42 +0200

Bill Fenner wrote:
 
> It should be working now.

Yes.  And what's the idea ?
  
So far I took e.g. "draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt",
removed "draft-" and "-00.txt" resulting in a fragment id.
"crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis", and added it to the queue URL:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis

And that's the position of 2234bis within its category
"non-WG standards track" (chronological).

For a new view on the editor queue it could be interesting
to split "blocked" I-Ds (= pending IANA or REF) from the
rest, sorting the rest chronologically, if that's the order
of processing.

Maybe you could add links to the second date (= "entered
the queue") to these fragments, e.g. link 2003-01-07 for
<http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-ifcp-14> to
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-ips-ifcp>

Ugh, new rule, don't strip "draft-" for any "draft-ietf-".

Apparently that's the oldest "non-blocked" I-D, whatever
that means.  For a fairer view you might need the date of
the "unblocking".
                   Bye, Frank

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:12:09 -0400

>Yes.  And what's the idea ?

It's the IETF's statement about having approved the documents, as opposed
to the RFC Editor's statement about having the documents in the queue.
  
>removed "draft-" and "-00.txt" resulting in a fragment id.

Unfortunately, whether or not you have to remove the "draft-" depends
on who added the document to the queue and when.  The RFC Editor said
they would be working on getting this consistent but for now it's not
very useful.

>"non-WG standards track" (chronological).

The primary key on the parking area is simply the date (and I'm
working on other sort orders).

  Bill

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:29:11 +0200

Bill Fenner wrote:
 
 [ <http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html> ]
> whether or not you have to remove the "draft-" depends on
> who added the document to the queue and when.  The RFC
> Editor said they would be working on getting this consistent

Let's hope that they settle on "keep the draft- prefix as is",
IIRC fragment id.s must start with an alpha, "draft-" is alpha.

 [ <http://rtg.ietf.org/Test/parking> ]
> I'm working on other sort orders

Neither "REF" nor "IANA" in the "state" column before the date
could be very interesting.  Or some statistics, but I guess
you already have that elsewhere.
                                Bye, Frank

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:12:08 +0100

>you already have that elsewhere.
Actually I disagree. It is quite useful to be able to find out from a 
single place why a document is still not published.

Alexey

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 04:19:19 +0200

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> It is quite useful to be able to find out from a single place
> why a document is still not published.

Yes, the queue is sorted by category + date, the parking area
by date, and Bill mentioned other methods of sorting, one could
be "status" + date, where "status" is "REF or IANA" (blocked)
vs. everything else (not blocked).  But maybe that's obvious,
and there are more interesting ways to sort the "parking area".

                               Bye, Frank

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:55:26 +0100

> single place why a document is still not published.

It would also be useful if the RFC-editor reported when a draft
would get their attention, and this was included in the list.

Stewart