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

Ole Laursen <> Fri, 24 February 2012 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7162C21F8838 for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.786
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VDzXTgoU7zLw for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DA421F8834 for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1410221ghb.31 for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:28 -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 rc2mr4665517igb.22.1330105108279 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id rc2mr3662126igb.22.1330105108207; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Ole Laursen <>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:38:08 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlojwQgAu6KFC5OKnmLHo166sX4gHYLxKI4zpgiwjIOLw/grarbGczALGTkF9TpYBFAk8IO
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Protocol Action vs. Document Action Messages
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:38:29 -0000

2012/2/24 Cindy Morgan <>:
>> 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 ( 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.