Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker

Henrik Levkowetz <> Thu, 23 February 2012 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0FF21F8752 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:08:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.284
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcRyGtNx5pyK for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7943521F8545 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]:34126 helo=vigonier.lan ident=henrik) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1S0gps-0008Fw-SP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:08:24 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:08:24 +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: Robert Sparks <>
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 <>, Russ Housley <>,
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:08:56 -0000

Hi Robert,


On 2012-02-23 22:53 Robert Sparks said the following:
> Inline
> On 2/23/12 2:59 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Robert, Ole,
>> On 2012-02-23 21:33 Robert Sparks said the following:
>>> On 2/23/12 2:20 PM, Ole Laursen wrote:
>>>> 2012/2/23 Henrik Levkowetz<>:
>>>>> Ok, so if this is used by the IESG or some ADs during the IESG processing,
>>>>> we should support it.  Do we have a straightforward way of associating a
>>>>> non-WG document with an area independently of who the sponsoring AD is?
>>>>> Since areas are groups, too, we should be able to have an association with
>>>>> the area in the same way that wg documents are associated with a WG, I think.
>>>> Yes. It sounds like we need to keep track of the area for a few
>>>> individually submitted documents here that conceptually belong to an
>>>> area, in the same way as WG drafts belong to a WG? Is that correct?
>>> I think this is mismodeling what we need a bit. Focusing on the
>>> individually submitted nature of the document may not be right. To
>>> put stress on it:
>>> How would you handle a document from a RAI working group that both
>>> Gonzalo and I needed to recuse on. Some other AD (let say Peter for
>>> this example) would be the sponsor. The doc should show from RAI and
>>> as a product of that RAI WG.
>> Agreed, but that's in line with what I (am trying to, at least!) propose
>> above.  See more below.
>>> It seems natural to just have an area associated with a document at
>>> any time it is identified as IETF stream.
>> What I'm proposing is that this association can be either indirectly,
>> through an association with a WG, which would give the area of the WG;
>> or directly set to an area (which is independent of the area of any
>> sponsoring AD).
> I'm OK with this proposal.
> Just to make sure I'm following the thinking -
> If I had a Document, I could ask it for its area. If it was an 
> IETF-stream document, it would have something to say, either because 
> it could tell because what working group it came from, or someone 
> would have been required to tell it what its area was when it became 
> IETF stream. If it wasn't IETF stream, area would be None.


> The only part that bothers me is knowing when to insist that someone
> provide the information, but that should be reasonably containable.


>>>> If so, I suggest we just associate the document with the area instead
>>>> of the phony individual group and be done with it. I can add some UI
>>>> for that. Does that sound agreeable?
>>> Treating individual submissions as belonging to a psuedo-group has
>>> always disturbed me, but I don't know if that first proposal is the
>>> right fix.
>> The alternative is to not associate them with a group at all, until they
>> have been accepted by a WG, or a sponsoring AD.  I think that for the
>> purpose of code uniformity it's easier to associate them with a group
>> 'Individual Contributions' (or whatever) than to code the equivalent of
>>    if == None:
>>       print "Individual"
>>    else:
>>       print
>> everywhere we need to show something for such a document.
> Well, there's more to it than that or you would just bury that bit of 
> complexity in
> something like doc.displayDocumentSource()
> But I have to apologize - I still have to be reminded that "Group"
> in the new schema is modeling something quite a bit more than an IETF
> working group.

Ah.  Right.  Ok.

> There are things like nomcoms, and external bodies, and a while bunch
> of other things that are Groups, so having a Group out there that is
> the container for IETF stream individual submission documents isn't
> bad. What I've cringed at is that someone might want to get/set the
> chairs of that group.

<<grin>>  Yes, we wouldn't want that.  It would be possible to enforce
limitations on that by using an extra table which gives permissible
role names for each group type; not really hard to do.  But we might
alternatively expect the Secretariat to not do silly things :-)

Best regards,