IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Charter diff feature

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 11 April 2013 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC5721F8C55 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWqRZ4KLm-77 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD68C21F8C30 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3BHHNsG019583; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:17:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3BHGhRb027886; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:16:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5166EFA7.20307@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:15:19 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Laursen <olau@iola.dk>
References: <5166B0E3.6070103@cisco.com> <CANb2Ov+X6mab1ZBVFM_mJE_MHqYQbgETnu2PmdTHYq4FQPPUpw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANb2Ov+X6mab1ZBVFM_mJE_MHqYQbgETnu2PmdTHYq4FQPPUpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Charter diff feature
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:17:25 -0000

On 11/04/2013 16:45, Ole Laursen wrote:
> 2013/4/11 Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>:
>> Let's take an example
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-jose/history/
>> In the From field, I have the choice between 2013-04-08, 2013-03-22, and
>> 2011-09-21.
>> When I check the current WG charter at
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/charters, I see 2012-08-01
> It looks to me as if it is actually the same charter?
>
> My guess is that the tools server and the Datatracker database has a
> different idea of the timestamp for that charter for some reason. We
> did an import when the charter tool went up - the details escape me,
> but I think the Datatracker timestamp is probably the correct one in
> this case.
>
> In any case, charters actually have official sequential revision
> numbers now rather than the timestamps.
Thanks, that's the trick: focus on the charter revision, and not the dates.

Regards, Benoit
>
>
> Ole
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email