Re: [charter-tool] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-04.txt
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 04 February 2011 19:02 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57493A68F0; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:02:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.761
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VBjngKpXq75h; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BD53A692E; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-08.local (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p14J64gG026578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:06:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Message-ID: <4D4C4E1C.2070809@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:06:04 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <4D2FB6B5.8030808@vpnc.org> <4D387D03.4040102@vpnc.org> <1ECD2A38-ED75-47B1-A5EA-84187761731A@nostrum.com> <4D44CB76.40400@vpnc.org> <3BD6EC0C-EDF5-4ACB-9BC6-B9BDEFCB5B53@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3BD6EC0C-EDF5-4ACB-9BC6-B9BDEFCB5B53@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: charter-tool@ietf.org, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [charter-tool] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-04.txt
X-BeenThere: charter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <charter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/charter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:charter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:02:42 -0000
On 2/4/11 10:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On 1/24/11 1:25 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > <snip/> > >>> >> >>> The tool should make it easy to track information and make the right >>> changes if the name of the group changes during, or especially at the >>> very end of, the BoF and review phase. >> >> Not sure what you mean here. It already allows changes; are you asking >> that someone can look up the earlier name and find the current charter >> proposal? > > At least. There have been a few cases recently where the WG charter that > got approved had a different name for the working group than > the name in all of the proposals (and sometimes even the name that went > through the WG review call to IETF announce. If the tool is supposed > to facilitate the approved charter against the proposals leading to it, > it needs to make following that change easy. > > This could also happen during the sequence of proposals before it gets > to the WG review stage. Got it. Fixed in the next draft. >>> The charter naming convention was useful for stating search and >>> compare requirements, but I would prefer that it be described as a >>> way to be precise in stating the requirement rather than declaring >>> that the solution (something meeting those requirements another way >>> might make tracking name change I discuss above easier for >>> instance). >> >> I'm hearing mixed messages. :-) I think a contractor implementing this >> would be much more likely to get it right the first time if we are >> specific. If you want something different for the specific naming >> algorithm I gave, that's cool, but asking a contractor to come up with >> their own isn't likely to work as well as us defining one. > > I was hoping to leave the door open to a solution that didn't assume the > distinction and mapping would be done based on filenames. > These things could authoritatively live as records in a database instead > of in discrete files. > This is a classic spot where we are defining a mechanism instead of > stating a requirement. > Perhaps that's the right thing to do when managing the vendors at hand. I formalized on filenames because the IETF has not had the greatest record of getting things out of databases run by different contractors over time. A mirrorable filesytem, although not the most efficient database, fixes that future transition issue in many ways. >>> "Initial IESG and IAB review" does not match the string "Internal >>> Review" that shows up in the agendas now. >> >> Correct. "Internal review" does not describe whom it is internal to. >> Part of the purpose here is to make the states more understandable to >> the wider audience who will now be tracking charters. Is the >> difference a problem in this case? > > It is if the phrases start showing up on the screens of the produced tool. They would, of course. I will change this back to "Internal Review" in the next draft, and hope that people looking at the tool understand whom the review is internal to. --Paul Hoffman
- [charter-tool] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-genarea… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [charter-tool] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-gen… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [charter-tool] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-gen… Paul Hoffman