[TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Agenda problems with IRTF stream documents

"Polk, William T." <william.polk@nist.gov> Fri, 29 October 2010 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <william.polk@nist.gov>
X-Original-To: tools-development@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696B33A6A6C; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQiS8xr8iGr3; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.nist.gov (rimp2.nist.gov [129.6.16.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C143A6A6B; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov (WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov [129.6.18.19]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9TDxYUS020940; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:59:34 -0400
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.19]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:59:18 -0400
From: "Polk, William T." <william.polk@nist.gov>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tools-development@ietf.org" <tools-development@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:59:32 -0400
Thread-Topic: Agenda problems with IRTF stream documents
Thread-Index: Act3cYLRbL5QNXYHqUOHcNKgS4ixxQ==
Message-ID: <C8F04B84.1F52B%wpolk@nist.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: william.polk@nist.gov
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:19:37 -0700
Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Agenda problems with IRTF stream documents
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:57:55 -0000

We have recently had a number of cases where an IRTF stream document ended
up on the wrong part of the agenda.  After the document was reviewed by an
AD, they issued a ballot but the document ended up on the agenda as an ietf
stream document.

Two recent examples were draft-katagi-clefia and
draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation, which appeared on the telechat agenda under
section 3.2.2 (Individual Submission Via AD, Returning Items) instead of
3.3.1. We were not ready to make a recommendation regarding
draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation, so it was moved to the Nov 18 agenda.  Once
again, this draft appears in section 3.2.2; it really should be in 3.3.2
(Independent Submissions, Returning items).

I am guessing this is a tools bug, although it could be driver error.  I
can¹t figure out where I went wrong with the clefia draft, though.  (The rrg
doc isn¹t mine... Can't say anything about that one.)

Could we add this to list of issues to be addressed?  This is a minor issue,
since we can fix it with an email to the secretariat, but it does have
greater impact since most directorates use the telechat agenda as one factor
in assigning reviews.  Since the security directorate (and I presume all
other directorates) do not review irtf and independent stream submissions
this does consume precious engineering cycles needlessly.

Thanks,

Tim Polk