Subject: [Gen-art] Finding Information

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:44:39 -0500

I have noticed two interesting problems finding information I need to do 
reviews.

1) When using the spreadsheet (as distinct from the original announcement), 
I go by the I-D tracker for all the detailed information about the 
draft.  However, the I-D tracker does not actually indicate what working 
group the document is from.
Usually, I can just use draft-ietf-xyz to know it is the xyz working group, 
but that is not required.

2) One recent I-D tracker note indicated that one should see the writeup 
for more information.  Sounds reasonable.  However, I am apparently not 
seeing the link that is presumably there that lets me get to that writeup?

Yours,
Joel

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:56:53 -0500

I was able to find the writeup.  It is buried in the IESG evaluation 
record.  (I finally remembered that the record always had the writeup 
attached, back when I dealt with them.  But that is not an obvious place to 
look for it.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Given that this is really the IESGs tool, it is up to Brian whether a 
suggestion for improvement should go to the tools folk.

At 02:44 PM 12/13/2005, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>1) When using the spreadsheet (as distinct from the original 
>announcement), I go by the I-D tracker for all the detailed information 
>about the draft.  However, the I-D tracker does not actually indicate what 
>working group the document is from.
>Usually, I can just use draft-ietf-xyz to know it is the xyz working 
>group, but that is not required.
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:59:19 -0600

Hi, Joel,

I agree, but wanted to expand on something that may matter until the 
ID-tracker does include working group names)...

I don't actually KNOW that the following is true, but what I was told about 
three million times by Coya was that the file names are not tied to working 
groups, except as a convention, so that a document may move from SIP to 
SIPPING or vice versa, without being renamed (there is no requirement, only 
convention, that draft names must change when a working group adopts an 
individual-submission Internet Draft - I actually changed the working group 
chair training to encourage draft name changes, because everybody assumes 
that the names mean something).

SIP to SIPPING isn't a big problem (the two SIP chairs are two-thirds of the 
SIPPING chairs), but going by draft-ietf-xyz may fail in some cases.

I've also tripped over a couple of drafts (and I know there are more) that 
are being discussed in multiple working groups (SIPPING and XCON pass stuff 
back and forth, and these two working groups don't share chairs), and of 
course, we are only talking to one working group's chairs when we send our 
reviews - fine, for pre-telechat reviews, but IETF Last Call reviews might 
reasonably go to both).

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:50:49 +0100

Well, go to the "detail" page in the tracker and look at the first line,
e.g.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=5992&rfc_flag=0

which says (in red, even) "(WG <kink> submission)"

As for the naming convention, the Coya statement was strictly speaking true,
but http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html#naming
makes it clear that the -WGNAME- convention is the norm, and is policed
by the secretariat for -00 drafts. But exceptions can happen.

     Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I don't actually KNOW that the following is true, but what I was told 
> about three million times by Coya was that the file names are not tied 
> to working groups, except as a convention, so that a document may move 
> from SIP to SIPPING or vice versa, without being renamed (there is no 
> requirement, only convention, that draft names must change when a 
> working group adopts an individual-submission Internet Draft - I 
> actually changed the working group chair training to encourage draft 
> name changes, because everybody assumes that the names mean something).
> 
> SIP to SIPPING isn't a big problem (the two SIP chairs are two-thirds of 
> the SIPPING chairs), but going by draft-ietf-xyz may fail in some cases.
> 
> I've also tripped over a couple of drafts (and I know there are more) 
> that are being discussed in multiple working groups (SIPPING and XCON 
> pass stuff back and forth, and these two working groups don't share 
> chairs), and of course, we are only talking to one working group's 
> chairs when we send our reviews - fine, for pre-telechat reviews, but 
> IETF Last Call reviews might reasonably go to both).
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
>> I have noticed two interesting problems finding information I need to 
>> do reviews.
>>
>> announcement), I go by the I-D tracker for all the detailed 
>> information about the draft.  However, the I-D tracker does not 
>> actually indicate what working group the document is from.
>> 2) One recent I-D tracker note indicated that one should see the 
>> writeup for more information.  Sounds reasonable.  However, I am 
>> apparently not seeing the link that is presumably there that lets me 
>> get to that writeup?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:55:00 -0500

Thanks.  I don't know how I missed that, since it was staring me in the face.

Joel

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:02:28 +0100

I think the WG information is there..... but another piece of information 
that I know is in the tracker but I'd like to see on the public interface 
(for gen-ART) is the "send comments to" list.

                  Harald

--On 13. desember 2005 14:44 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> about the draft.  However, the I-D tracker does not actually indicate
> what working group the document is from.