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

Henrik Levkowetz <> Fri, 24 February 2012 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C98221F8763 for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.545
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzOT7MLGEsot for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAD921F875E for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]:38081 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1S109P-0002qY-KE; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:45:51 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:45:50 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cindy Morgan <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: Ole Laursen <>,
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 18:45:53 -0000

On 2012-02-24 18:38 Ole Laursen said the following:
> 2012/2/24 Cindy Morgan <>om>:
>>> 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.

Fix deployed!  (I was en-route home, via a number of shops).

Best regards,