Re: [iola-wgcharter-tool] A question about the states in RFC 6292

Martin Qvist <martin@iola.dk> Wed, 31 August 2011 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@iola.dk>
X-Original-To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C53C21F8B14 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Ufh2kq0hP-TJ for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9B621F8B0E for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so867232bka.31 for <iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.8.71 with SMTP id g7mr171724bkg.271.1314788116704; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Martins-Mac-Pro.local (x1-6-00-26-bb-6d-1b-41.k574.webspeed.dk [83.92.95.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o12sm326127bkj.9.2011.08.31.03.55.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E5E1311.9010607@iola.dk>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:55:13 +0200
From: Martin Qvist <martin@iola.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
References: <4E5DEEEA.5050808@iola.dk> <4E5DEF65.3090208@iola.dk> <4E5E1155.1050504@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E5E1155.1050504@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [iola-wgcharter-tool] A question about the states in RFC 6292
X-BeenThere: iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / WG Charter Tool Project <iola-wgcharter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iola-wgcharter-tool>, <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iola-wgcharter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool>, <mailto:iola-wgcharter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:53:50 -0000

Hi

Ah, now I understand. No, that wouldn't be possible as it is setup right 
now. It would be better to make separate charter Document objects for 
each (re)chartering as you proposed in the other mail.

It wouldn't complicate things too much. There would be some more merge 
of the individual charter Document histories in the History log on the 
WG record, but that shouldn't take too long to fix.

Best,
Martin

On 31/8/11 12:47 , Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 2011-08-31 10:23 Martin Qvist said:
>> Hi
>>
>> The behaviour you describe is already handled (with Henriks proposed
>> states) in the implementation. The active charter is showed under
>> /wg/wgacronym (it shows the charter with the highest revision XX), and
>> the newly proposed charter texts are shown under /wgrecord/wgacronym
>> (the charters with revision XX-00, XX-01, etc.). When the proposed new
>> charter is approved it gets revision XX+1 and is then shown in both
>> /wg/wgacronym and /wgrecord/wgacronym.
>
> But as long as those are just different revisions of the same document,
> we won't be able to have different states for them, right?  I mean, then
> someone who went to look at the current charter document would be able
> to extract a state of for instance 'Informal IESG Review' instead of
> 'Approved' because a later revision of the document would exist, with
> that state?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> 	Henrik
>
>> I hope this is clear enough.
>>
>> Best,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 31/08/2011 00:25, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> Henrik:
>>>
>>> I see a  problem with your proposal as I understand it.
>>>
>>> When there is a charter in place, a recharter is a discussion about replacing that charter.  The potential recharter can take many revisions, and while this is happening, the original charter remain the 'active' one.  When the recharter is approved, it become the 'active' one.  So, during the recharter there are two documents in play.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> While implementing the WG Charter tool, we discovered a potential problem
>>>> with the state description in RFC 6292,
>>>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6292
>>>>
>>>> The RFC describes one set of review states for a WG during initial
>>>> chartering, and another set of review states during re-chartering:
>>>>
>>>> Initial:
>>>>     o  Informal IESG review
>>>>     o  Internal review
>>>>     o  External review
>>>>     o  IESG review
>>>>     o  WG exists
>>>>     o  Not currently under review
>>>>
>>>> Rechartering:
>>>>     o  WG exists; Informal IESG recharter review
>>>>     o  WG exists; Internal recharter review
>>>>     o  WG exists; External recharter review
>>>>
>>>> Now, the objects which exists in the database which are relevant for
>>>> the chartering process are two:  A *WG Object* (which before the RFC 6292
>>>> extensions can be in one of two states: 'Active' and 'Concluded'), and a
>>>> *Document Object*, the Charter, which potentially can get any set of
>>>> appropriate states we care to assign it.
>>>>
>>>> There is no 'WG Review' object to hold a 'review state', and there seems
>>>> to be a mixture in what the review states listed above applies to - WG,
>>>> charter, or a review process.
>>>>
>>>> Our suggestion, and the way we have implemented this in the code currently,
>>>> is to split the states up as described below.  From these states, all of
>>>> the 'review states' above can be synthesized if desired, although we would
>>>> propose that it's more straightforward to display the WG state and the
>>>> Charter document state directly:
>>>>
>>>>    * The WG object keeps its current states, and gets a new one:
>>>> 	o Proposed
>>>> 	o Active
>>>> 	o Concluded
>>>>
>>>>    * The Charter Document Object gets the following states:
>>>> 	o Informal IESG Review
>>>> 	o  Informal IESG review
>>>> 	o  Internal review
>>>> 	o  External review
>>>> 	o  IESG review
>>>> 	o  Not currently under review
>>>> 	o Approved
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> 	Henrik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> iola-wgcharter-tool mailing list
>>>> iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iola-wgcharter-tool mailing list
>>> iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iola-wgcharter-tool mailing list
>> iola-wgcharter-tool@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-wgcharter-tool
>>