Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] The next steps

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:29:58 +0100

I'm sure you've noticed those tons of mails tracker sent in the last
couple hours. Sorry about that.

I finally got round to doing action items I had on me since the last
meeting. Sorry it took so long, but I was swamped with my day job.
Here's what I did:

- Submitted tickets for RFCs/drafts we discussed
- Submitted tickets for issues raised in stateful-issues
- Created new milestones:
  A - easy, apply before merge
  B - moderate, apply after merge
  C - awaiting consensus
  New, not prioritized
- Updated draft:
  - moved original authors to acknowledgements
  - added current team as authors. The order is somewhat arbitrarily
    chosen - sorted by first names. Feel free to reshuffle as desired.
  - moved sections 27,28 as appendices (they are appendix A,B in 3315)
  - added (empty) appendix A: Changes since 3315
  - added (empty) appendix B: Changes since 3633
  - updated header (obsoletes 3315, 3633)
  - bumped up revision to -01

I did not assign any tickets to any of us. I decided that would be a
poor thing to do. What I'd like ask you to do instead is that each of us
will pick a ticket, assign it to yourself, and apply the changes.
For now, let's focus on ticket that are either already assigned to
milestone A (easy) or don't have any milestone assigned and look like
easy to do category. Don't forget to update appropriate appendix.

I saw couple tickets being closed already. I'd like to ask those who
dealt with those tickets to update appendix as needed.

I'm not sure what we should do with the tickets we consider completed.
Just close it? Keep them open until the next meeting and then close it?
Perhaps ask Henrik to add extra state like "review"? Personally, I think
that for the obvious tickets we're dealing with right now we can just
close them immediately. We may need to be more cautious once we get to
more complex tickets in B or C category.

Thoughts? Comments?

Tomek

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:49:30 +0100

>   - bumped up revision to -01

At the moment, there are a couple of xml files in the repo and I am
confused which file we should be working on. I fixed a couple of
issues from the issue tracker in rfc3315bis.xml, as it seemed from the
repo log that this was the file had been working on. The
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.xml was been created recently and after it
was created we had further updates in rfc3315bis.xml.

So, after you put your changes directly to
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.xml, we already have a disparity between the
two files.

I would suggest that we work on rfc3315bis.xml and create versions to
be submitted to IETF occasionally from it.

> dealt with those tickets to update appendix as needed.

I had fixed a couple of errata-type of tickets for RFC3315 before an
appendix was added. I will update appendix accordingly when we are
clear which document should be updated.

> more complex tickets in B or C category.

For A category of tickets we should probably just close them. For
other categories it may be useful to discuss, if the owner of the
ticket feels it should be discussed. But, it is unrealistic to have
every ticket reviewed by someone else.

Speaking of reviews, it may help if we had one commit in git per
ticket. That way it will be easy to identify what has changed with the
particular ticket if someone else had to review this change.

Marcin

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:19:55 +0000

It is rfc3315bis.xml that should be updated. There is a question about whether it is worth to save the .txt form (after updating xml) - you can always generate it.

We might want to delete some of the other stuff to avoid confusion?

I had thought about saving the published versions, but as I submitted both txt and xml to IETF, figured their repository was better to use as official storage of the submitted version.

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:49 AM, "Marcin Siodelski" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dhcpv6bis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcpv6bis

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:26:48 +0100

> I had thought about saving the published versions, but as I submitted both txt and xml to IETF, figured their repository was better to use as official storage of the submitted version.

Tomek,

Can you please move your changes to the rfc3315bis.xml?

Bernie,

As long as we are all clear that rfc3315bis.xml there is probably no
harm in keeping published versions in git repo. They could be stored
in the subfolder to make it easier to browse files. Alternatively, we
could tag git revisions as we publish new versions of the document to
IETF.

Marcin

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:04:54 +0100

On 05.02.2014, 12:26, Marcin Siodelski wrote:
>> It is rfc3315bis.xml that should be updated. There is a question
>> about whether it is worth to save the .txt form (after updating
>> xml) - you can always generate it.
It sounds a bit odd that the file is called rfc3315bis.xml in our repo,
but draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-XX in IETF. I think we should rename it
in the repo.

>> We might want to delete some of the other stuff to avoid
They were confusing, I agree. They are moved to old/ directory.

The top directory does not contain any txt files anymore. I saw that
Michael wrote makefiles for generating txt files. That's ok to keep
adding them to the repo, just not to the main directory. I've updated
the makefile.

> Can you please move your changes to the rfc3315bis.xml?
Done.

> in the subfolder to make it easier to browse files.
I just did that. Let's see if that works for everyone.

I think we should rename rfc3315bis.xml to follow official IETF name
(draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-XX.xml). It just makes the upload to IETF
easier and makes the idnits tool to not complain about mismatched name.
But we can do that later if we decide so.

Anyway, the draft is now ready for applying erratas and other easy stuff.

Tomek

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:10:22 +0000

It is a lot more to type and more likely to get confused with other drafts in working directories. I am not sure who originally started with that name (could check in github but not worth it) and it seems easier to work with a shorter name. At least when I'm working, I have to type this name many times using various tools and I sure would prefer something short. Posting is only done infrequently and copying to a new name not a big deal? But I'll live with whatever the group decides is best collectively.

If we do want to keep a local copy of those that we submitted, it would be best to use the IETF name (draft-...-xx.txt and draft-...-xx.xml). Not sure if there's a way to mark these as read-only (I'm not a github expert by any means).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Tomek Mrugalski [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:05 PM
To: Marcin Siodelski; Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] The next steps

>> xml) - you can always generate it.
It sounds a bit odd that the file is called rfc3315bis.xml in our repo, but draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-XX in IETF. I think we should rename it in the repo.

The top directory does not contain any txt files anymore. I saw that Michael wrote makefiles for generating txt files. That's ok to keep adding them to the repo, just not to the main directory. I've updated the makefile.

Done.

I think we should rename rfc3315bis.xml to follow official IETF name (draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-XX.xml). It just makes the upload to IETF easier and makes the idnits tool to not complain about mismatched name.
But we can do that later if we decide so.

Tomek

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:38:04 +0100

As Tomek asked, I just updated the appendix with changes I made
(addressing most of the erratas).

Marcin