Subject: FW: syslog charter page

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:16:57 -0400

FYI.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:54 AM
To: David Harrington
Cc: 'Chris Lonvick (clonvick)'
Subject: Re: syslog charter page

Hi David,

On 2009-10-14 16:33 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:
...
> Yes, it should.  Investigating.

Ok, found the bug.  A WG preceeded in the list of all WG charters by
a WG with neither internet-drafts nor RFCs would not have its charter
extracted and updated on the tools.ietf.org WG status page.  Things
should fix themselves within about an hour now.

Thanks for reporting this!

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:47:54 -0500

Do you expect Henrik's bug and fix to apply to all working groups with  
incorrect charter issues, or just syslog?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:06:08 +0200

Hi Ben,

> incorrect charter issues, or just syslog?

The bug I fixed for syslog was only related to correctly showing the charter
which is in the database and on the official charter page in the tools page
which shows current and past charters, and diffs between them.

This is distinct from the problem that a number of charters were lost in the
transition from NeuStar secretariat services to AMS secretariat services,
and then incorrectly restored.  To rectify this problem, you have to send a
note to the secretariat about the issue, (Cc: your AD, I assume), providing
the correct charter text.  In determining the correct charter text, the
charter history on the 'charters' page on tools.ietf.org may be helpful;
look for a large change (indicated by the red changebar) around 2008-02-05,
for instance as seen on the 'simple' charters page:

	http://tools.ietf.org/wg/simple/charters

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:09:33 -0400

Hi,

I actually didn't have any expectations.

As I read Henrik's explanation, it appears any WG that is preceded in
the WG list by a WG that has no RFCs or drafts will have the same
problem. So I would expect that WGs that follow one or more of the
bug-inducing WG pages would get fixed, not just syslog. But, I don't
know which list Henrik references and whether that ordering is visible
to us. I also don't know which WGs have no RFCs or IDs.

syslog isn't fixed yet.

dbh

> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:48 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'