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

Ole Laursen <olau@iola.dk> Wed, 22 February 2012 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <olau@iola.dk>
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 5B51A21F8701 for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 fXHyGPgEFoOU for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D15321F869E for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so361649vbb.31 for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of olau@iola.dk designates 10.52.92.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.92.47;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of olau@iola.dk designates 10.52.92.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=olau@iola.dk
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.92.47]) by 10.52.92.47 with SMTP id cj15mr15939691vdb.11.1329915349620 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.92.47 with SMTP id cj15mr12898510vdb.11.1329915349298; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.96.130 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CD06DE3-74CE-42A1-B000-B7C593875EF8@amsl.com>
References: <4CD06DE3-74CE-42A1-B000-B7C593875EF8@amsl.com>
From: Ole Laursen <olau@iola.dk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:55:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CANb2Ov+yUwG31SJqHpf4559T3r6x87Hqwe+BvNr1BtL1T8Tw2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cindy Morgan <cmorgan@amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3XXAt9qXmuRVRFVMxkacTu/grHUluelv5wkYs6XB941p7lxST2Ri3L2EdUIyxtyoigX87
Cc: Amy Vezza <avezza@amsl.com>, 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 12:55:54 -0000

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?


OIe