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

Russ Housley <> Wed, 22 February 2012 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBCA21F85A7; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:52:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.527
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxfCo+74kJ6i; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF39821F85A3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4615AF2414B; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:52:25 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HK0Gd+9bhoHm; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:52:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B846F2406D; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:52:24 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-28--543389476"
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:52:08 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Ole Laursen <>, The IESG <>,
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:52:11 -0000

This should not be true.  A telechat agenda indicates which AD has the token, and it shows an Area.  I believe that when Jari was the token holder for -two-maturity-level, the area was still "(Gen)".


On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> IESG :
> Cindy and I stumbled over what we first thought was a bug, but it turned out to be a surprising
> feature/side-effect of the conversion effort.
> The data we've been collecting on the edit-info-form (what we have been using to add a document to the
> tracker or to change it's IESG state/telechat date, etc.) about which area a document belongs to is not being
> used by any part of the production datatracker other than that form.
> <ceficbhd.png>
> So, it will not appear on the form in the new system (and the data collected in the old system is 
> not being migrated I believe).
> That really surprised me, but after digging through the code and discussing it with Ole, I'm convinced it's
> correct.
> If we find a need to start collecting that data again in the future, it won't be hard to add.
> RjS
> On 2/22/12 11:18 AM, Ole Laursen wrote:
>> 2012/2/21 Robert Sparks <>
>> The biggest is that the form didn't ask for the area the document should be associated with.
>> It occasionally happens that an AD from outside the area takes the shepherd role for a document, so
>> you can't infer this from which AD is assigned.
>> Right. At the moment, we don't store an area at all. Grepping for it, the only place I managed to find using the attribute apart from the edit form is the agenda document template where the proxy wrapper will infer the area from the WG (if there's a WG) or else from the shepherding AD.
>> The search page looks for the area of the WG in the old schema if you do a search for area, not the area attribute which is perhaps not surprising if it's only set for documents in the IESG process.
>> So do you think this is a problem still?
> <snip/>