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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-02-24 18:38 Ole Laursen said the following:
> 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.

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


Best regards,

	Henrik