Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Protocol Action vs. Document Action Messages

[Ole Laursen <[e-mail]>]

2012/2/24 Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>:
>> I'm not sure what exactly went wrong but the code was looking at the
>> indefinite article of the intended status which is really odd. Instead
>> I now just compare it with your list.
>
> FWIW, whatever is being used to tell the difference between Protocol and Document Actions on the IESG agenda (https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/?private) does seem to be working as it should.

Yes, I had a closer look, and I can see now why it broke (it
accidentally got the intended status without the indefinite article).
Anyway, choosing between Procotol/Document Action based on whether the
intended status should be prefixed with "an" or "a" is brittle. Future
generations of IETF code base maintainers will thank us for getting
rid of that abomination.

> But I just checked several docs listed on the agenda as Document Actions*, and their approval announcement text is still being generated as Protocol Actions.
>
> * draft-ietf-v6ops-v6nd-problems
>  draft-snell-atompub-tombstones
>  draft-ietf-lisp-interworking
>  draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis

Ah, sorry, we need to wait a second for Henrik to deploy the update. I
did check it on my local server, and I think we're good, but would
appreciate if you would try it too when he's deployed it.


Ole