Subject: Update on the hacked TSVWG WG item

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:06:01 -0600

An update on the hacked TSVWG ID situation of late last week

The Secretariat deleted the -13 version and stepped the database back 
to the -12 version, which was our last valid version.

The authors/editors are going to submit both a new -13 and then a -14 
version to clear the doc past the troubled -13 issue.  It was decided 
not to just post a -14 -- thus obsoleting the bad -13 version - 
because that version would then remain in the tools database as a 
valid version if one were to look at the diffs per version, and not 
notice the author change. That reader/searcher would not understand 
the text changes there weren't there in the -12 version, were there 
in the -13 vesion, then were removed in the -14 version.

The renegade authors have agreed they made a mistake. Admitting they 
didn't know the IETF process -- which doesn't completely explain how 
they formulated this entire version-13 of the ID in my mind - and 
have since submitted their own individual version without the -tsvwg- 
in the filename, thus making their version an individual submission 
without an intended WG.

James

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:31:39 +0100

Hi,

> to the -12 version, which was our last valid version.

And I've also deleted the various representations of -13 on the tools
servers.

> in the -13 vesion, then were removed in the -14 version.

With -13 gone from ietf tools as well, there's maybe no need to submit
a -14 for the reason outlined above?

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Ignacio Goyret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:59:00 -0800

>a -14 for the reason outlined above?

That could cause confusion due to misconfigured cache services
showing the old iteration of -13 instead of the new one.
Revision numbers are cheap! :-)

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:06:17 -0600

Hi, Henrik,

> Revision numbers are cheap! :-)

Just to confirm - Donald Eastlake reported that the old -13 seems to have 
escaped:

At 04:52 PM 11/17/2009, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>Well, I guess you are set on this path, but rolling back strikes me
>as having some danger. I just googled for
>draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-13 and it appears the the html'ized
>tools version is still in place. Someone may have downloaded it or
>the .txt while that was in place....

So I agree - revision numbers are cheap...

Spencer

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:30:20 +0100

Hi Spencer,

>> the .txt while that was in place....

The html version at tools.ietf.org reflected the wrong -13 on the 17th
when Donald wrote the above, but I cleaned out that (and the pdf version,
and other stuff) a little bit later.
> So I agree - revision numbers are cheap...

I agree that there's absolutely nothing bad about issuing both a new -13
and a -14.  I did have experience with earlier similar cases where just
replacing the transgressing draft seemed to have worked well.

Best,

	Henrik