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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 23 February 2012 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 E205521F8878; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-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 Hbv7F5hfyBB9; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FDB21F886B; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unexplicable.local (pool-71-170-125-181.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.125.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1NKXM8F039126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:33:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4F46A292.1080409@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:33:22 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Laursen <olau@iola.dk>
References: <4F4415E7.9080608@nostrum.com> <CANb2OvKXRUarNY-Vp+CkA+7P5FZ1=_OfqyO67gOnKfx2bAARCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F455B47.3040305@nostrum.com> <F3883977-5295-48A7-A226-ABCA5563A2A3@vigilsec.com> <4F45B07F.7080508@nostrum.com> <CANb2OvKJy=HT34KNFXFzN+3V6L33SgxUfxrrh_H2XufXPe6nXQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F465849.5020707@levkowetz.com> <CANb2OvJyzjgRyEt+2_cMz8nH=UfqjJ_f+2V87XYOCA8qtgPLvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANb2OvJyzjgRyEt+2_cMz8nH=UfqjJ_f+2V87XYOCA8qtgPLvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 71.170.125.181 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, iola-conversion-tool@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:33:25 -0000

On 2/23/12 2:20 PM, Ole Laursen wrote:
> 2012/2/23 Henrik Levkowetz<henrik@levkowetz.com>om>:
>> 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.

It seems natural to just have an area associated with a document at any 
time it is identified as IETF stream.

>
> 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.

>
>
> Ole