Re: Test version of the Parking Area

>hopefully the final result will be able to express the more complex
>forms of wedgitude such as "your check was sent two years ago via IESG
>express under tracking number XXXX and is currently being held at our
>hub until it can be stapled to another check from a different working
>group"

So, e.g., for draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit, is it enough to say "Waiting for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547 (IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup)
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities (Approved- Announcement sent)"?
(Note that the 2nd one is a REF that's not there of a REF that is
there).  Is that too much to put on the summary page?

Would it also be useful to put a link to, e.g.,
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?doc=draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547&docx=on
for each dependency, to check further dependencies?  (Yes, I should have
a "recurse and check all that dependency's dependencies" option)
(Note that these dependencies are all heuristically extracted and
are a "best case" scenario)

For draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib, is it sufficient to say "REFs cleared
on 2005/04/20", or would you want to see more detail, that it was
draft-ietf-mpls-bundle that was holding it up?

I'm starting to think that for most of the complex relationships, we
want a summary on the top level (e.g., draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit
could say "REF to 2 drafts not in queue") and a detail page that gives
you all the info - otherwise I'm concerned about cluttering up the
top page.

And, of course, a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps I could
find a way to fit http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf in
there.

  Bill

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf