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

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: Jim Schaad; [e-mail]
> 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
don't
> >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
context?

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
tractable
> 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
list.
> >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

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