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

[Ole Laursen <[e-mail]>]

2012/2/21 Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>:
> 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