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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Original-To: iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C98221F8763 for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.545
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzOT7MLGEsot for <iola-conversion-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAD921F875E for <iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38081 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1S109P-0002qY-KE; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:45:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4F47DADE.3000900@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:45:50 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
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 <cmorgan@amsl.com>
References: <8FFE1251-A16C-49A9-93E2-32F1F6392D11@amsl.com> <CANb2OvJw7KmwcnyTEoo_S0mxjgOtvZ_8ZKe-kEjxV+M7ncuvNw@mail.gmail.com> <11ED5602-C7D7-4FD6-AAAC-4E1423DD5651@amsl.com> <CANb2OvJbsVxxn0shL8bNTuNktWAZD2tRydb3OfrB5Ayb+_b1MA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANb2OvJbsVxxn0shL8bNTuNktWAZD2tRydb3OfrB5Ayb+_b1MA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: cmorgan@amsl.com, iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org, olau@iola.dk, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: Ole Laursen <olau@iola.dk>, iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Protocol Action vs. Document Action Messages
X-BeenThere: iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <iola-conversion-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iola-conversion-tool>, <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iola-conversion-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-conversion-tool>, <mailto:iola-conversion-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <cmorgan@amsl.com>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 (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