Subject: Workflow docs for datatracker?

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:32:53 -0400

Hi,

Does anyone have a pointer to instructions for how to run things in
the datatracker?

I just adopted a document in a WG.  Ok, but how do I change the name
of the file?  Well, of course, I can't.  Ok, so how do I get the WG
-00?  No idea.  Doesn't seem to tell me.

On the IETF chairs' page, there is a link to the EDU team
presentations, but they're sorted by meeting.  I have no idea when
the new datatracker presentation was, if there was one.  The tools
pages doesn't have anything on it either.

My experience with the new datatracker is hit and miss -- about half
the time, I get what I'm supposed to do and just do it.  The rest of
the time, I am left completely mystified about what I should do, and I
first wander around unsuccessfully looking for instructions, then try
things randomly.

Clue-by-four welcome.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Derek Atkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:37:07 -0400

Andrew,

> first wander around unsuccessfully looking for instructions, then try

My understanding is that the author needs to re-submit the draft with the
new name, and then you will be required to approve it.

> A

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:55:32 -0400

Hi,

> new name, and then you will be required to approve it.

Thanks.  But that raises new questions, of course :)

    1.  What is the purpose of the "Call for Adoption" state, and the
    next state "Adopted by WG", and the next state "WG Document"?  Are
    the first two the ones you use on the individual draft, and the
    third the one you use on the WG draft?

    2.  How do I link the old draft to the new one?

    3.  Are there instructions for this anywhere?  I can't believe our
    best answer for instructions is to ask people for their
    understanding on the list.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:03 -0500

>      third the one you use on the WG draft?
RFC6175 may help as a first step.
The tool should show some documentation for the state names already, but 
it should be more intuitive.
>      2.  How do I link the old draft to the new one?
At the moment, send a note to the IESG secretary letting them know A 
replaces B.

>      understanding on the list.
Maybe it would be worth starting a documentation effort on the chairs wiki?

It's a new tool - thanks for using it. I suspect there are more rough 
edges waiting to be found.
(Also consider joining us at the codesprints to help fix those rough 
edges as they're found).

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:27:22 -0400

> Maybe it would be worth starting a documentation effort on the chairs wiki?

Now that I have two clues to rub together, I'll try.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:34:25 +0200

Hi,

I went through very similar steps and hit similar issues.
What I tended to conclude was that:
- to adopt a draft-lastname-xxx as draft-ietf-xxx you first need their 
authors to post as draft-ietf-xxxx
- adopting a doc under draft-lastname-xxx is offered by the datatracker 
as an option, although the cases where we do this is rare ; but the 
presence of this option is indeed very confusing...
- if you mistakenly adopted draft-lastname-xxx as a WG document, this 
can later be fixed by marking draft-ietf-xxx as "Replaces" 
draft-lastname-xxx (once the former is posted) :  this can be done 
through the datatracker interface (in the freeform text area) or by 
emailing [email-masked]

To help those who'd take the time to document this, I'm attaching the 
email that Amy Vezza was kind enough to write to clarify all this.

Two possible improvements would help avoid the confusion:
- hide the option to adopt a draft-lastname-xxx as WG doc, deeper in the 
interface, or add a big red warning sign saying this is not the usual 
way to proceed
- make it easier to mark a draft as replacing another one (already asked 
in the past)

-Thomas

> first wander around unsuccessfully looking for instructions, then try

Subject: [www.ietf.org/rt #47747] Tutorial for newly appointed chairs
From: "Amy Vezza via RT" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 10:46:29 -0700

Hi Thomas,

Working Group chairs have a number of resources available to them to
help with policies and procedures.  There is the IETF Web site page
specifically for and about being a working group chair:

http://www.ietf.org/wg/chairs-page.html

There is also the WG Chairs Guide Wiki:

http://www.ietf.org/wg/chairs-page.html

It seems you are specifically interested in Internet-Draft submissions.
 Please refer to the Checklist for Internet-Drafts submitted for RFC
Publication (this has good information about nits and what is required
to be included in a document):

http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html

If your working group has been working with an author of an individual
Internet-Draft (something like draft-lastname-wgacronym-technology) and
the working group wants to adopt that draft there are a couple of ways
this can be accomplished.  As WG chair you could use the datatracker's
working group extension and "adopt" draft-lastname-wgacronym-technology
as a working group document. Go to your WG in the datatracker
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/l3vpn/) and scroll down past the list
of documents and RFCs L3VPN has produced.  You will see a list of
"related" documents.  By clicking on the link for a document, and, at
the detail page the link to "Adopt into WG" you should be able to assign
it to your working group.

Alternatively, the working group can create a working group draft with a
working group filename (draft-ietf-wgacronym-technology) and upload it
(this will be uploaded as version -00) and then send us email at this
address telling us draft-ietf-wgacronym-technology REPLACES
draft-lasname-wgacronym-technology.  

If none of these resources answer your questions, yes, this can be one
of the best places to ask - if the Secretariat staff that monitors this
mail queue doesn't have the answer, we can always pass the issue and
email to someone who can help.

Please let me know if you have further questions!

Regards,

Amy

On Wed May 09 09:19:20 2012, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> As you might have seen, as recently appointed chairs, we struggle to 
> make the right steps to make a draft a WG draft.
> I'm wondering: is there some sort of documentation somewhere of how we 
> are supposed to handle such things? (including in the case where the 
> draft-ietf-... draft ends up being handled as a manual submission ?) is 
> this address ([email-masked]) the right address to ask such 
> questions ?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> -Thomas

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:11:51 +0200

On Jun 19, 2012, at 09:34, Thomas Morin wrote:

> make it easier to mark a draft as replacing another one 

+1

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Murphy, Sandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:57:10 +0000

Ran aground on this myself just today.  I was alerted that I had two draft-lastname-xxx drafts listed in the Active section of the wg datatracker page.  Both were correctly noted as "Adotped by a WG".  Perhaps my failure was in not notifying the secretariat of the replacement and all will be well once I've done that.

>From the message below and the attached message from Amy, you would believe that the Adopted by a WG state should only be used if the draft were never going to be replaced by a draft-ietf-wgname draft.

But note:

RFC6174 says this of the "Adopted by WG" state:

   An individual I-D that is adopted by a WG may take weeks or months to
   be resubmitted by the author as a new (version-00) WG draft.  If the
   "Adopted by a WG" state is not used, the Datatracker has no way to
   determine that an I-D has been adopted until a new version of the I-D
   is submitted to the WG by the author and until the I-D is approved
   for posting by a WG Chair.

This text sounds like the intent of this state is to note when a draft-name-xxx draft is adopted, and the state is to be used *even when* the draft is expected to be replaced by a draft-ietf-wgname named draft.

Note also:

When one changes the state to "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" that the "Change State" page changes and it asks you to "3. Select one action", one of which is "Adopted by a WG/Adopted for WG Info Only".  None of the options offered represents "Adopted by a WG but replaced by wg draft with another name".  So if you do not change state to "Adopted by a WG", you are stuck with a draft in the "Call For Adoption By WG Issued", despite the fact that it has been adopted and making it appear that adoption has not been decided, until the replacement draft-ietf-wgname is submitted.

I think the better procedure for an individual draft that has been adopted would be to note the state transition to "Adopted by a WG", with a later "replaced by" change or annotation to get it out of the Active list.

Or maybe I misunderstood and that is exactly what everyone had in mind all along.

--Sandy
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Thomas Morin [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Workflow docs for datatracker?

Hi,

-Thomas

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:58:07 +0200

Hi Sandra,

2012-06-19, Murphy, Sandra:
[...]
>
> When one changes the state to "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" that
> the "Change State" page changes and it asks you to "3. Select one
> action", one of which is "Adopted by a WG/Adopted for WG Info Only".
> None of the options offered represents "Adopted by a WG but replaced
> by wg draft with another name".  So if you do not change state to
> "Adopted by a WG", you are stuck with a draft in the "Call For
> Adoption By WG Issued", despite the fact that it has been adopted and
> making it appear that adoption has not been decided, until the
> replacement draft-ietf-wgname is submitted.

Good observation;

>
> I think the better procedure for an individual draft that has been
> adopted would be to note the state transition to "Adopted by a WG",
> with a later "replaced by" change or annotation to get it out of the
> Active list.

It does make sense.
Thanks for clarifying this.

-Thomas

> From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf
> of Thomas Morin [[email-masked]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19,
> 2012 3:34 AM To: [email-masked] Subject: Re: Workflow docs for
> datatracker?
>
> Hi,
>
> I went through very similar steps and hit similar issues. What I
> tended to conclude was that: - to adopt a draft-lastname-xxx as
> draft-ietf-xxx you first need their authors to post as
> draft-ietf-xxxx - adopting a doc under draft-lastname-xxx is offered
> by the datatracker as an option, although the cases where we do this
> is rare ; but the presence of this option is indeed very confusing...
> Two possible improvements would help avoid the confusion: - hide the
> option to adopt a draft-lastname-xxx as WG doc, deeper in the
> way to proceed - make it easier to mark a draft as replacing another
> one (already asked in the past)
>
> -Thomas
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just adopted a document in a WG.  Ok, but how do I change the
>> name of the file?  Well, of course, I can't.  Ok, so how do I get
>> the WG -00?  No idea.  Doesn't seem to tell me.
>>
>> My experience with the new datatracker is hit and miss -- about
>> half the time, I get what I'm supposed to do and just do it.  The
>> rest of the time, I am left completely mystified about what I
>> should do, and I first wander around unsuccessfully looking for
>> instructions, then try things randomly.
>>
>> Clue-by-four welcome.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> A
>>
>
>
>