Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-06.txt> (Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to Informational RFC

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 3/14/11 2:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Paul -
>
> 1) If we publish this as an RFC, note that imgur.com will only keep
> an image if it's viewed at least once every three months.

Good catch. I have added a note in the upcoming -08 that the sentence 
removed before publication. FWIW, I do not know whether or not there is 
an intention to publish this document as an RFC.

> 2) In the list of things constituting an "update to an RFC", could
> you call out marking an RFC as Historic, and changing the maturity
> level of an RFC in place (such as was done for 5652)

Sure. Done in -07.

> 3) 2.1.2 talks of the ease of use to create a datatracker account. I
> think we have that already through the tools system. Are you thinking
> this will require the creation of a different system?

Getting a Datatracker account is different than getting a Tools account. 
Currently, going to <https://datatracker.ietf.org/> does not show you 
how to get a Datatracker account. Even if you try the meme of "try to 
log in and see what happens if you fail", you do not get presented with 
a "here's how to get a Datatracker account" message. If we expect these 
tools to be widely-used, we need to be sure that it is easier than it is 
today to get a Datatracker account.

On 3/14/11 2:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> How much would the list of attributes in 2.1.6 need to be expanded
> to  make one of these user-defined lists
> enough to satisfy the initial "Reporting Requirements" in section
> 4.3  of draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00?
> Should we add the ability to match against the values (or absence of
> value) of a state for the various state machines tracked by the
> tracker?

Given that the document is completely new and has had thin review so 
far, we might be better off waiting for it to progress and doing a 
revision to the tool than waiting to know what the actual states are. 
Note that the wording in that section is quite indefinite: "For example, 
the initial set of discrepancies could include...". It would be easy to 
add more attributes to the ones in 2.1.6 later.

--Paul Hoffman