Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Datatracker improvement requests from IRTF

[Allison Mankin <[e-mail]>]

Heh.  That is interesting.  So I will ask the RG Chairs to put in an Active
RG Document state when they adopt a document, but it would be good to have
No State there until there's a state.



On 11 April 2018 at 15:55, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/11/18 2:39 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
>
> Hi, Robert, Henrik,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  Also I'm very pleased by the IRTF States search
> in Advanced search, so thanks for taking
> that in!
>
> 2. Rationalize the datatracker view when one searches "irtf" - some of
>> the documents are labeled "IRTF RFC Stream," others "Active RG Document"
>> - these aren't  useful as is (see attached PNG)...
>>
>> This needs more explanation.  The first of these indicates that the
>> document is with the RFC Editor, the second that it is with the RG;
>> In other words, these are very different states.  Collapsing them to
>> one doesn't seem to make sense.  What is the actual need here?
>>
>>
> The IRTF RFC Stream tags are not actually indicators that the document is
> with the RFC
> Editor, that's the problem.  Here are three documents that all should both
> be "Active RG Document" but one is listed
> as "IRTF RFC Stream" instead:
>
> draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity.00.txt -IRTF RFC Stream
> draft-irtf-icnrg-mapme-00.txt - IRTF RFC Stream
> draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-01.txt - Active RG Document
>
> The top two documents do not currently have any IRTF state. The search
> results view shows the stream when there's no state to show for the stream.
> The "IRTF RFC Stream" comes from the stream description (I'll dig into the
> code to see exactly where it comes from), not from a state in the IRTF
> state machine.
>
>
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/community/personal/[e-mail]/trackdocument/draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity/>
>
>
>
> Possibly RG Chairs have some pilot errors, but I don't know what causes it
> to be set.  We have a state
> Sent to the RFC Editor which is probably good enough, and I'd reserve the
> IRTF RFC Stream for a future use, not
> settable by the RG Chairs.
>
> Hopefully this is clear enough for a ticket.  Let me know.
>
>
> 3. Datatracker view when one searches "irtf" or looks at any IRTF
>> document needs to show both the IRTF State and the Tags for the state -
>> the tags are missing now
>>
>> Ack on this for the search results.  There is limited room in the search
>> results list; would it be meaningful to replace the intended status with
>> the tags, to save space?
>>
>> With respect to showing tags on the individual document pages, they are
>> shown below the IESG status already, see attached screenshot (from a
>> development server where I set the 'Waiting for Dependency...' tag on a
>> document).
>>
>>
>> I'd be fine with Intended status not being there in this search result -
> having the tags visible helps with tracking status, and
> that is the more pressing need.
>
> Allison
>
>
> On 11 April 2018 at 15:11, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to turn these into tickets and am having some difficulty with
>> #2 below. I agree that it needs more explanation. The png Alexey sent does
>> not demonstrate the "not useful"ness of the results without more
>> explanation. That result page is showing the existing states, as all search
>> results do. Is it that there aren't enough hints as to where each bit of
>> state is coming from? Or something else that's making the result not what
>> you want?
>>
>> RjS
>>
>> On 4/9/18 8:33 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexey, Allison,
>>
>> Some comments inline as to the functionality.  Scheduling and such is a
>> matter for the TMC and possibly IAOC, where it's a matter of substantially
>> new functionality.
>>
>> On 2018-04-09 14:38, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>
>> Dear tools team,
>> I am forwarding datatracker improvement requests from IRTF.
>>
>>
>> 1. Need to be able to do a datatracker search by IRTF state - currently
>> these are not available terms in the  advanced search State pulldown
>>
>> Fixed by Mat Ford, will be available in the next release (expected
>> tomorrow Tuesday April 9th).
>>
>>
>> 2. Rationalize the datatracker view when one searches "irtf" - some of
>> the documents are labeled "IRTF RFC Stream," others "Active RG Document"
>> - these aren't  useful as is (see attached PNG)...
>>
>> This needs more explanation.  The first of these indicates that the
>> document is with the RFC Editor, the second that it is with the RG;
>> In other words, these are very different states.  Collapsing them to
>> one doesn't seem to make sense.  What is the actual need here?
>>
>>
>> 3. Datatracker view when one searches "irtf" or looks at any IRTF
>> document needs to show both the IRTF State and the Tags for the state -
>> the tags are missing now
>>
>> Ack on this for the search results.  There is limited room in the search
>> results list; would it be meaningful to replace the intended status with
>> the tags, to save space?
>>
>> With respect to showing tags on the individual document pages, they are
>> shown below the IESG status already, see attached screenshot (from a
>> development server where I set the 'Waiting for Dependency...' tag on a
>> document).
>>
>>
>> 4. Create an online ballot for the IRSG Poll for IRTF documents.
>> Functions -
>>
>> 4a. Create IRSG Poll ballot (IRTF Chair only)
>>
>> This is basically similar to IESG telechat ballot.
>>
>>
>> 4b. Enter ballot position, Yes/No Objection/Not Ready/Recuse - (all IRSG
>> members)
>>
>> 4c. Enter comments - one kind only, no Discuss - (all IRSG members)
>>
>> 4d. Comments and ballot position get emailed to IRTF Chair, IRSG, RG
>> Chair of group, document authors, and RG list
>>
>>  4e. Mark ballot complete (IRTF Chair only) - not automatic since we
>> have a looser definition than IESG's
>>
>>  4f. Once ballot is marked complete, IRTF Chair can request conflict
>> review. Need to be able to do a datatracker search by IRSG state -
>> currently these are not available terms in the State pulldown
>>
>> Ok, seems clear on first view.  I assume the functionality will parallel
>> that of the IESG ballots where not otherwise specified.
>>
>>
>> 5. Conflict Review fixes needed:
>>
>> 5a. Currently the conflict review request by IRTF Chair does not include
>> enough notifications - email to IRTF Chair, IRSG, RG Chairs of group,
>> document authors, and RG list
>>
>> Seems clear enough, and should be straightforward.
>>
>>
>> 5b. Currently a conflict review automatically assigns the document to
>> the IETF Chair and sets it into the next telechat agenda.  The IETF
>> Chair manually changes both of these, and we need notifications when the
>> new AD assignment occurs and when the telechat agenda date is set:  same
>> set as line above
>>
>> Seems clear enough.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> 	Henrik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>>
>>
>>
>
>