Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Protocol Action vs. Document Action Messages

[Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> On 2012-02-24 18:38 Ole Laursen said the following:
>> 2012/2/24 Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>:
>>>> I'm not sure what exactly went wrong but the code was looking at the
>>>> indefinite article of the intended status which is really odd. Instead
>>>> I now just compare it with your list.
>>> 
>>> FWIW, whatever is being used to tell the difference between Protocol and Document Actions on the IESG agenda (https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/?private) does seem to be working as it should.
>> 
>> Yes, I had a closer look, and I can see now why it broke (it
>> accidentally got the intended status without the indefinite article).
>> Anyway, choosing between Procotol/Document Action based on whether the
>> intended status should be prefixed with "an" or "a" is brittle. Future
>> generations of IETF code base maintainers will thank us for getting
>> rid of that abomination.
>> 
>>> But I just checked several docs listed on the agenda as Document Actions*, and their approval announcement text is still being generated as Protocol Actions.
>>> 
>>> * draft-ietf-v6ops-v6nd-problems
>>> draft-snell-atompub-tombstones
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-interworking
>>> draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis
>> 
>> Ah, sorry, we need to wait a second for Henrik to deploy the update. I
>> did check it on my local server, and I think we're good, but would
>> appreciate if you would try it too when he's deployed it.
> 
> Fix deployed!  (I was en-route home, via a number of shops).


And fix confirmed--all of the docs on the agenda that should be Document Actions are now generating their approval announcements as such. Thank you!

Cindy