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

Ole Laursen <> Wed, 22 February 2012 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B51A21F8701 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.658
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXHyGPgEFoOU for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D15321F869E for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so361649vbb.31 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;
Authentication-Results:; spf=pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id cj15mr15939691vdb.11.1329915349620 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id cj15mr12898510vdb.11.1329915349298; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:55:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Ole Laursen <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:55:29 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Cindy Morgan <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3XXAt9qXmuRVRFVMxkacTu/grHUluelv5wkYs6XB941p7lxST2Ri3L2EdUIyxtyoigX87
Cc: Amy Vezza <>,
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] "Intended std level" on Add/Edit screen
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 12:55:54 -0000

2012/2/21 Cindy Morgan <>om>:
> On the Add/Edit screen (e.g., 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?