Re: [iola-conversion-tool] "Intended std level" on Add/Edit screen

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 22 February 2012 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744A121E800E for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tJzNI5yAMgxi for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0E021E800F for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-177.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1MKhivZ013223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:43:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4F455380.6060004@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:43:44 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
References: <4CD06DE3-74CE-42A1-B000-B7C593875EF8@amsl.com> <CANb2Ov+yUwG31SJqHpf4559T3r6x87Hqwe+BvNr1BtL1T8Tw2g@mail.gmail.com> <4F44F940.5040000@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F44F940.5040000@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040109020709090505010603"
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] "Intended std level" on Add/Edit screen
X-BeenThere: iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <iola-conversion-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iola-conversion-tool>, <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iola-conversion-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-conversion-tool>, <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:43:46 -0000

The main document page currently labels this with " Intended RFC status:"

On 2/22/12 8:18 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Cindy, Amy, Ole,
>
> On 2012-02-22 13:55 Ole Laursen said:
>> 2012/2/21 Cindy Morgan<cmorgan@amsl.com>om>:
>>> On the Add/Edit screen (e.g. https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp/edit/info/), was the "Intended status" field (in the production version) changed to "Intended std level" for a reason?  Because I read that as "Intended Standard level," but not all I-Ds/RFC are on the standards track.
>> Hm, the name of the underlying attribute changed and it appears that
>> changed the form, too.
>>
>> Regarding the name, I read it as "intended standardization level". The
>> reason we're going with it in the database is that "status" is a vague
>> word - for a draft/RFC we've consolidated several entities ending up
>> with a bunch of different states/statuses so it ends up being
>> important that we have descriptive names.
>>
>> And it appears we have no good word for standards track maturity level
>> + non-standards track maturity levels + BCP, so that's why it ended up
>> being standardization level. Does that make sense?
>>
>> I can easily change the form back to say intended status, but if you
>> think it's okay, I'd prefer if the interface uses the same terminology
>> as the database?
> As Ole says, since we are moving in the direction of displaying many
> different status fields (WG status, IESG status, RFC-Ed status, and
> more (including the (Internet Std/Proposed Std/Informational/Experimental/...))
> status, we need to be more explicit than saying just "Intended status".
>
> Any appropriately descriptive term for the intended standardization level
> is OK, as long as it can be understood and is distinct from all the other
> status fields we show ...
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> 	Henrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> iola-conversion-tool mailing list
> iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-conversion-tool