Subject: Re: I-D submission tool draft

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:28:08 -0700

> Also, the conference/journal tools I have used and the ID Submission
> tool we are drafting are rather simple. I would be surprised if a lot
> of time can be saved by customizing an existing tool compared to
> writing a few scripts from scratch. We are talking about a few simple
> pages here. Most of the complexity is in validation and posting code
> that is beyond the scope of the ID submission draft and that cannot be
> adopted (existing IETF-specific tools aside) as it is specific to the
> IETF.
>

This is exactly what I am a little concerned about. I'd rather not see a lot
of effort put into "a few scripts from scratch". This suggests to me
something hacked together with little concern about how it is actually used.
I'd rather see a well designed tool with a good Web-based user interface
that automates draft submission (point and click) with proper attention to
workflow.

It may in fact be the case that the existing conference submission tools
don't satisfy IETF's needs, but I believe due diligence needs to be done to
make sure that is the case. Also, it may also be possible that one of the
existing tools might be easily modified if IETF's requirements are not all
that far off from what it provides. Henning Schulzrinne is a long time
participant in IETF, and he might be willing to work on modifying EDAS for
IETF's needs.

            jak

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:37:11 -0600 (MDT)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, James Kempf wrote:

>> Also, the conference/journal tools I have used and the ID 
>> Submission tool we are drafting are rather simple. I would be 
>> surprised if a lot of time can be saved by customizing an existing 
>> tool compared to writing a few scripts from scratch. We are talking 
>> about a few simple pages here. Most of the complexity is in 
>> validation and posting code that is beyond the scope of the ID 
>> submission draft and that cannot be adopted (existing IETF-specific 
>> tools aside) as it is specific to the IETF.
>
> This is exactly what I am a little concerned about. I'd rather not 
> see a lot of effort put into "a few scripts from scratch". This 
> suggests to me something hacked together with little concern about 
> how it is actually used. I'd rather see a well designed tool with a 
> good Web-based user interface that automates draft submission (point 
> and click) with proper attention to workflow.
>
> It may in fact be the case that the existing conference submission 
> tools don't satisfy IETF's needs, but I believe due diligence needs 
> to be done to make sure that is the case. Also, it may also be 
> possible that one of the existing tools might be easily modified if 
> IETF's requirements are not all that far off from what it provides. 
> Henning Schulzrinne is a long time participant in IETF, and he might 
> be willing to work on modifying EDAS for IETF's needs.

Agreed, the Secretariat should reuse if reuse makes most sense. To me, 
"simple" does not mean "hacked together without concern about how it 
is actually used and without attention to workflow" :-). Careful use 
and flow analysis is what the draft in question is supposed to provide 
to the Secretariat. I just hope that it would be relatively simple to 
satisfy our requirements (draft interpretation/validation aside).

Thank you,

Alex.