Subject: I-D submission tool draft

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:08:37 +0200

Hi,

The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool
to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the
current mail submission through the secretariat as primary
submission mode.

We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the
requirements, and would very much like your input on this.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-00.txt

We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your 
feedback should be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in
order to be considered.

	Thanks,

		Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:05:00 +0200

I forgot to say:

Discussion of the draft should happen on the tools-discuss 
list, to keep the noise level down - subscribe at the 
following URL:

  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

	Henrik

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> We expect to issue a -01 draft in 1 (one) week, so your feedback should 
> be in Friday, Sep. 18th, at the latest, in
> order to be considered.
> 
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>         Henrik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:55:15 -0700

Henrik,

There seems to be a built-in assumption here that someone will write a new
tool for this.

Most conferences and journals nowadays use an automated submission system,
I've heard there are 4 different systems used by various conferences. One of
them I've used extensively is EDAS (http://edas.info/doc/) which was
developed by Henning Schulzrinne. I'd be curious to know why something like
that won't work for IETF? I imagine it might save IETF lots of time (and
potentially money if the intent was to contract out the production of the
tool), even if IETF had to change its procedures slightly. Has there been
any attempt to compare the requirements in this draft to existing systems to
see if IETF might get by with something that is already out there?

            jak

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:48:43 +0200

Hi James,

> see if IETF might get by with something that is already out there?

Excellent point.  There is no inherent value in rolling our own.  If we
can adapt an already existing system at a lower cost, it would most
probably be better.  We'll look at EDAS, and try to hunt down and look
at the other three out there, too. (If you happen to have names or URLs
for any of those, could you please send them to [email-masked]?)

	Henrik