Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker

Henrik Levkowetz <> Thu, 23 February 2012 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0343321F8895; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmEDQPjl3zq7; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D13C21F887B; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]:58592 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1S0faP-0003hD-Sm; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:21 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:21 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Laursen <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: Russ Housley <>, The IESG <>,, Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:48:50 -0000

Hi Ole,

On 2012-02-23 21:20 Ole Laursen said the following:
> 2012/2/23 Henrik Levkowetz <>:
>> Ok, so if this is used by the IESG or some ADs during the IESG processing,
>> we should support it.  Do we have a straightforward way of associating a
>> non-WG document with an area independently of who the sponsoring AD is?
>> Since areas are groups, too, we should be able to have an association with
>> the area in the same way that wg documents are associated with a WG, I think.
> Yes. It sounds like we need to keep track of the area for a few
> individually submitted documents here that conceptually belong to an
> area, in the same way as WG drafts belong to a WG? Is that correct?


> If so, I suggest we just associate the document with the area instead
> of the phony individual group and be done with it. I can add some UI
> for that. Does that sound agreeable?

The document should be associated with an Area at the point where it is
accepted for sponsoring by an AD (but the area would not necessarily be
the area of the sponsoring AD) -- before that it doesn't have an
association with an area, if it's not a WG document, I believe.

Best regards,