Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] First look: Improved email handling in the datatracker

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 01 September 2015 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C841B5181; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hj8unbULvMb7; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF2CC1B4E74; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkbf67 with SMTP id f67so52604781vkb.0; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2p0u60k+5yh3oEtVLek2/FVbstBPgoacLHUQQi1y06o=; b=CTkV0KU6bfWdxcxnDr/IGR/mZQh8vbuUqjeSwNieKB08Y6ceAdJe/SpeQx9mcMPPEc 5+K7XBMQoc5tmsF3EY/SkgWfyBswzBvv02acLjXZS/fmxjg9vRQ/fXerlJe09eB9GHaO cjIqKSOh1t99CyRmSRskby/co+FRzYPU7WaJqZKWR0BuQau4O6j/zm/shyPCLiZb3i4d dSJGPRPq5urB8LmLaONh2739uSOde7O8PYuii0nPU9YVgtevT/LS4rY/ALeUceDRevYA ynttkq893Fq+D35sx9L7MVyuAYX6j6wi038nTGp0voNxK/eR//6LBTIw5UjWj+ZJCdf9 2Tow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.156.106 with SMTP id wd10mr28942844vdb.64.1441118990027; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.63.1 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BB5D606A-C7C5-4D82-AD08-0DC6CD599CF7@cisco.com>
References: <55E252E6.5040604@nostrum.com> <CALaySJ+dv-az-D-DSUChKRcc2nb_EJ-zQxJ0CNKBfPW8E1jz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <BB5D606A-C7C5-4D82-AD08-0DC6CD599CF7@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:49:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-d+U5gZ_yVrVk5dGREQp7n4FdRZpU6q4QbCvQqR5ys_rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d495a7ad6b3051eb0a933"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/F69_8JmM-czB8Tc7_Adbh-5pe3w>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] First look: Improved email handling in the datatracker
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:50:01 -0000

Barry,

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Aug 31, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. A question I've always had is whether it makes sense for a
> > document's "ad" alias to include all ADs in the area, rather than just
> > the responsible AD.  I can see occasions when one would want to alert
> > all ADs in the area, but in the vast majority of situations, I think
> > we want only the responsible AD.
>
> I agree with that.


I've had that question, too. I think it's worth discussing.

Normally, we'd want the responsible AD, but when we have the responsible AD
who isn't available, the other AD(s) in the area probably do benefit from
having context.

The longest period of unavailability I've seen recently was when Wes Eddy
stepped down at the first IETF in 2013, and I wasn't named as his
replacement for a couple of months, and that gap could have been longer.
I'd guess Martin benefited from from not starting at zero with Wes's
working groups during that time.

You, and the other ADs serving at the time, would know more about that than
I do, of course.

(And when Martin gets back from vacation in a week or two, we can ask him
:-)

There may have been longer periods; I just don't know.

But, worth discussing.

Spencer


> Alvaro
>