Re: [Tools-discuss] How to get updated early/wglc review status for documents on datatracker datatracker

['Toerless Eckert' <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Mehmet

I don't think that it would be good to change anything in the YANG doctor reviews done
against the old versions of the draft that had the YANG. That sounds like rewriting history.

The way i remember it from other drafts, lets say if YANG did not move out, but was just fixed,
that a new review would be done against the new revision of the doc, and lets assume that it was
green. Then someone looking at datatracker would nicely see "old-revision: red, new-revision: greeen",
ak: authors did their YANG work, fine.

Unless we have anothrer, equal or better way to document that there is no issue regarding YANG
in the new revision of the documents, i still think exactly the same approach is best for
this case, where the YANG was moved. There still is no YANG issue anymore in these two drafts,
when previously ther where YANG issues. Whether fixing the issues involved movement or changing
the YANG seems immaterial to me for a status assessment.

And of course, just making YANG on these two drafts green does not mean that the draft where the
YANG was moved to would be green by implication. That subject to further review. Which of course
would ideally be done by doctors who had prior in-runs with the constituent documents YANG text.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 07:11:40PM +0200, [e-mail] wrote:
> > I think that Toerless would have gotten better results with Mehmet had he asked Mehmet to confirm that the YANG has properly moved from draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae to draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis.
> 
> Toerless actually wants to get the YANG status of the draft set to "Green" so that people can assume there is no issue. 
> IMO after removing the YANG module there should be no YANG status necessary for this draft.
> 
> If indeed it is indispensable to keep the historic YANG reviews made on the outdated draft versions on the datatracker page 
> I could do a workaround by commenting on the last YANG review made and setting the YANG status to "Ready". 
> This would make the YANG status "Green" however this looks like an ugly hack in my eyes.
> 
> BTW: The drafts in discussion are:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher/
> 
> Mehmet
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 6:16 PM
> To: Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>; Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Toerless Eckert' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] How to get updated early/wglc review status for documents on datatracker datatracker
> 
> 
> Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I want to check to see if two different things being
>     > discussed. Toerless is wanting to make a review result change status. I
>     > _think_ Mehmet is saying that the automated yang check result for the
>     > draft should change. Do I have that right?
> 
> That's not wrong, but it's also not exactly right.
> (I think that lack of YANG should probably cause the YANG check to go unset, if that's a state it can be in)
> 
> I think that Toerless would have gotten better results with Mehmet had he asked Mehmet to confirm that the YANG has properly moved from draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae to draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis.
> 
> (three other documents lost their YANG.  If you are YANG-involved and want details of that, I can point you at IETF116 presentations)
> 
> 
> {it's me. I'm the problem}
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]