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

Robert Sparks <> Thu, 23 February 2012 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E205521F8878; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.506
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hbv7F5hfyBB9; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FDB21F886B; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unexplicable.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:33:22 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <>
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 <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Russ Housley <>, Henrik Levkowetz <>,, The IESG <>
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 20:33:25 -0000

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.

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