Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Incorrect time stamps in the History trail for recently-published RFCs

[Ole Laursen <[e-mail]>]

2012/3/1 Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>:
> Question: It looks like the datatracker now magically gets the information when a new RFC is published.  Previously, the Secretariat had to do part of that manually, including changing the IESG state to "RFC Published."  Does this now happen automatically, or does the datatacker sync with the RFC Editor database at set times?  In either case, it looks like the Secretariat no longer needs to take action here?

Yes, it gets the information from the RFC Editor. It did that before
too, but saved the information on the side instead of merging it in. I
couldn't do that with the new schema, had to merge, so in the end it's
now automatic I think. It will set it to be in the RFC state and add
the comment you've noticed. I hope that's okay?

There's a slight problem with the IESG state, it doesn't set that to
published, we need to get that fixed although I don't think you can
actually see it on the document pages.

> Bug: In the history trails of the RFCs that were published in the last two days, it shows the RFC as being published on 2012-02-01, rather than 2012-02-29 or 2012-03-01:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database/history/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht/history/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/history/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps/history/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stone-mgcp-vbd/history/
>
> And strangely, for draft-ietf-6man-3627-historic, the history trail does not include an "RFC Published" message from the system at all (although the doc page itself does have a link to the RFC):
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-3627-historic/history/
>
> [And if you look at draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message, the history trail has the correct time stamp because Amy changed the state manually to RFC Published yesterday.  At some later point the datatracker got the correct RFC number information from somewhere else.]

Odd, it's supposed to put in the publication date it gets from the RFC
Editor, but it's possible there's a bug somewhere. I'll take a look at
the above tomorrow.


Ole