Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Community Datatracker draft -02

"Jim Schaad" <> Tue, 23 November 2010 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B320F3A6ABA for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id et2AAhxNfiOT for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D583A6912 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TITUS (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24E77B63; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:58:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jim Schaad" <>
To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <>, <>
References: <069201cb84a5$f3600e60$da202b20$> <> <001f01cb8541$cbe593e0$63b0bba0$> <p06240802c90f9c1d813c@[]> <003101cb8a17$6faeaaf0$4f0c00d0$> <p0624082fc910b3a4d80c@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624082fc910b3a4d80c@[]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:10:44 -0800
Message-ID: <009501cb8ab3$c3b5ed10$4b21c730$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGmhsIGnND7rj+Y3kZx1QsKT7FjIQKCUTwEAeo0jB8Cp4rtvQFW0/97AjJGVDuTc26k8A==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Community Datatracker draft -02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:57:27 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman []
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: Jim Schaad;
> Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Community Datatracker draft -02
> At 11:32 PM -0800 11/21/10, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >1.  Is there perhaps a requirement for some type of mathematics of the
> >lists?   We currently have unions - i.e. make me a list of lists.  I
> >know that I can think of any good reason to have intersections (i.e. in
> >all of the following lists), but I can think that the subtraction
> >operation might be very useful.  I care about everything that this
> >working group does EXCEPT for the following documents.
> That seems pretty obscure and would have a difficult interface.
> >2.  In section 2.1.6, I am wondering if I can put a list instead of a
> >particular RFC or particular draft in some of the locations?  I.e. can
> >I get a list of all of the drafts/rfcs that are referenced by the
> >drafts/rfcs in this list?  I can see it as being useful for some type
> >of background processing.  I.e. I need to figure out which drafts or
> >RFCs I might care about reading because they relate to the current set
> >of drafts that I am tracking.
> That, too, seems pretty obscure. What does "relates to" mean in this

What I was looking at was starting with the statement

   o  All drafts that are referenced by a particular draft

But what I would like to do is to say
   All drafts that are referenced by any draft on list <XXXX>

> >3.  Section 2.2.2 - This section does not match exactly what I remember
> >from the discussion.  I remember that it should be possible to create
> >an atom feed that specifies exactly which events are to be sent.  (OK -
> >I see this in the open issue list.)
> Right: it is an open issue for display, Atom, and mailing lists. It seems
> to me, but I want to hear more from the group before adding it.
> >4. In Section 2.3.1 - You have a requirement that the display should
> >only show a single draft once.  Does the same requirement also apply to
> >the atom and e-mail feeds?
> Not currently, but it could. Thoughts?

I would like not get the same message multiple times on a single document.
I think this would encourage my SPAM filters to think this is a spam sender.

> >5.  In section 2.3.3 - you talk about having the flag on a draft in a
> >Do you really mean list or view of a list?  What happens if you have
> >multiple flags because the draft appears in multiple lists?
> Good catch. I think I mean in the view of the list. Otherwise, the user
would lose
> information when they put different dates on the draft and the Datatracker
> only shows them one of the records.
> >6.  In appendix B - It might be better to have a set of "pre-defined"
> >lists that are owned by tools team (or some such group) that contain
> >the set of good pre-defined lists that people want to see.  Such as:
> >  WG - Std track documents
> >  WG - Non-std track documents
> >  WG - Agenda documents for next meeting.
> >  ....
> Not sure where this goes in Appendix B.

Ok - I think that this may not go into appendix B, but would be a part of
2.1.6 except for the last item.  The thing that triggered this in my mind
was the comment on scraping agendas for the last bullet in Appendix B

> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium