Re: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dnsop-shared-root-server-01.txt>

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Robert

Thanks for the explanation.  I am not shocked by what you described, which
means I've been involved in the IETF long enough.
I'm wondering if the Subject line could contain the new state?

Subject:  New Datatracker state Waiting for AD Go-Ahead <draft-ietf-....>

I went back and was looking in my email for datatracker update emails, and
they are not consistent.
Here are a few examples:

----
IESG state changed:
New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed

(The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead)
----
IANA action state changed to "In Progress"
----
The IETF WG state of draft-salgado-dnsop-rrserial has been changed to
"Adopted by a WG" from "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" by Tim Wicinski:
----
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-sury-toorop-dnsop-server-cookies in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
----



Robert, I will be the first to say I should be ignored because my OCD can
drive
myself mad, let alone anyone else.  I also don't have any claims to what
makes the
most sense.

Feel free to ignore me now, as you more important things to worry about.

tim



On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:07 AM Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tim -
>
> This one is frustrating - whichever way we state it (old to new, or new
> from old), several people chime in and want it the other way.
>
> The last time we went through this, several IESG members pushed for the
> current form since it puts the most important bit of information (the state
> _now_) first.
>
> We even with through iterations where we split the information onto
> multiple lines, and tried to emphasize (in plain-text) the new state, but
> pushback landed us where we are.
>
> (Note that the new state is bolded on this history page for the document).
>
> We can add quotes, and it would be nice to get other suggestions for how
> to make the message more useful - for instance, would it be helpful for the
> email message to say _who_ changed the state?
>
> RjS
>
>
> On 6/19/21 1:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> I have a silly question.   In these emails, the state change is
>
> State changed to None from WG Document
>
> Which feels very counter intuitive, and always causes a double take.
> Why does it not read
>
> State changed from WG Document to None
>
>
> Also, quotes around the state names make things more obvious.
>
> Will gladly file said bug, though it is a nit.
>
> tim
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 2:38 PM
> Subject: Datatracker State Update Notice:
> <draft-ietf-dnsop-shared-root-server-01.txt>
> To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
>
>
> State changed to None from WG Document
>
> Datatracker URL:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-shared-root-server/
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - [e-mail]
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: [e-mail]
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: [e-mail]
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: [e-mail]
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
>