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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Wed, 22 February 2012 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 54A3421F855A for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:46:56 -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, 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 LMEfTg9v-yFh for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A397F21F84EC for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54609 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1S0J5S-0004D3-MP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:46:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4F45543E.4090401@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:46:54 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
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: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <4CD06DE3-74CE-42A1-B000-B7C593875EF8@amsl.com> <CANb2Ov+yUwG31SJqHpf4559T3r6x87Hqwe+BvNr1BtL1T8Tw2g@mail.gmail.com> <4F44F940.5040000@levkowetz.com> <4F455380.6060004@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F455380.6060004@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rjsparks@nostrum.com, iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
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 20:46:56 -0000

On 2012-02-22 21:43 Robert Sparks said the following:
> The main document page currently labels this with " Intended RFC status:"

That seems good to me.

	Henrik

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iola-conversion-tool mailing list
> iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-conversion-tool