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

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 23 November 2010 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBD228C155 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:06:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.861
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.456, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwUungM7s8WA for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791253A68F9 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAN07TMD051420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:07:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624082fc910b3a4d80c@[]>
In-Reply-To: <003101cb8a17$6faeaaf0$4f0c00d0$>
References: <069201cb84a5$f3600e60$da202b20$> <> <001f01cb8541$cbe593e0$63b0bba0$> <p06240802c90f9c1d813c@[]> <003101cb8a17$6faeaaf0$4f0c00d0$>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:07:28 -0800
To: "Jim Schaad" <>, <>
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 00:06:38 -0000

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

That, too, seems pretty obscure. What does "relates to" mean in this context?

>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?

>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.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium