Subject: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool additions

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:06:02 +0200

Hi,

   A new proto-team document has just been submitted, describing changes
to the ID-tracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/) which makes it possible
for WG chairs to use the I-D tracker  for managing WG documents from
the time of adoption as WG document, and on throughout the process.

Since these changes and enhancements are explicitly meant for Your Use,
Dear Fellow Chairs, it would be very good if you would read and comment
on the document.  Excluding boilerplate etc. the actual content is 4
pages long, so it should be manageable...

The document is available from the internet-drafts repository:

http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-00.txt

Please send comments to this list, with Cc: to [email-masked] .

Thanks,

	Henrik

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:42:26 +0200

Hi Henrik,

I have some confusion about the states.  Is there sufficient difference
between WG Last Call & Awaiting Reviews to require a separate state?  To
my line of thinking WG last call is the shot across the bow that gets
otherwise disinterested people to actually read the doc.  I have no
problem with a proto checklist in the tool asking how many reviews were
don and even by whom.

Eliot

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:53:26 +0200

Hi Eliot,

on 2006-05-15 08:42 Eliot Lear said the following:
> between WG Last Call & Awaiting Reviews to require a separate state?

During the last year or so in MIP4 we've had two documents where we
for different reasons have asked for reviews, without it being appropriate
to do a WGLC.  Allison also had examples and saw a clear difference
between these.  The most obvious cases are probably those needing MIB
doctor review or similar, but there are other cases too, as far as I
can see.

>  To
> otherwise disinterested people to actually read the doc.

Yah.  (And sometimes even that doesn't work ,;-)

>  I have no

Ok.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:20:31 +0200

> Yah.  (And sometimes even that doesn't work ,;-)

Personal opinion, but it's linked to earlier discussion about early
cross-area review: I think they are definitely distinct states at
distinct stages in the process. In fact, what is the point of WG
Last Call if you haven't already had your MIB review, Security review,
or generic review for cross-area issues? In any case, I'd like
WG chairs to have this choice.

     Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:09:09 +0200

Henrik,

As long as the state is optional, I have no problem with it.

Eliot