Re: Test version of the Parking Area

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:12, Bill Fenner wrote: 
> 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?

Probably. 

what I'm hoping for is a clear answer to the question "is there anything
I need to do / anyone I need to remind to get this document out".

> 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)

I think that would help, yes. 

> 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?

If you can look at the historic state of a document's dependencies I
don't think it's necessary for the top-level view to mention a resolved 
dependency.. 

> 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.

yup. 

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