Re: [websec] proposed workflow for trac issue tickets (HSTS)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCED11E8085 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:30:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PAVoggDfT2Bb for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7656D11E8080 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:30:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1328031004; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=1oHcsVix3Js48cz9OKrub87EZlkPM11xFMGLoC5pRts=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Xi5IQvciGReb95C+LtCqEWs/H4tkHenoLXu/IQ0EnPVY1QRQFmSk23rw/Ac55VpCX45Cyo ksxIcmiG6oyfImeHhOHkUCTFqXN+KtsN0gfZ/1pAfiJp1EVWGaCQ1bS345d8Np/2R+GFHx j+c+7X/sYOOhioCdi5uUGRS1m8f2NhI=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <TyglFgAvKAWI@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <4F282515.5010707@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:29:57 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
To: websec@ietf.org
References: <4F235180.2030302@KingsMountain.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F235180.2030302@KingsMountain.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [websec] proposed workflow for trac issue tickets (HSTS)
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:30:06 -0000

On 28/01/2012 01:38, =JeffH wrote:
> I did some modest checking around, and there is not a ietf-wide 
> process for using the issue tracker aka trac. Each working group is up 
> to their own devices whether they wish to use it, and if they do, for 
> establishing their workflow for such use.
>
> trac is installed with a nominal default workflow, and we apparently 
> can't customize things like new additional values for "Status" or 
> state transitions on our own.
>
> The default as-installed workflow is illustrated here..
>
>   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/wiki/TracWorkflow
>
> I /think/ we're using trac >= version 0.11, so the second diagram 
> should apply.
>
>
> I've submitted all the issue tickets for strict-transport-sec with 
> default attribute values (e.g., for status), and it appears no one 
> else has edited the attrs, so the status of all the tickets is "new".
>
> for a nominal websec wg workflow for specification bugs, without 
> "reassignment" of tickets, I suggest..
>
> 1. ticket initially submitted, status: "new"
>
> 2. ticket addressed in a spec revision, status <- "closed", resolution 
> <- "fixed"
>
> 3. folks review the spec
>
>   a. no objections to ticket's fix, then goto 4.
>
>   b. if wg consensus (as assessed by co-chairs) is that the ticket's 
> fix needs revision, ticket is "reopened", goto 2.
>
> 4. ticket closed, really.
>
>
>
> So, if there aren't any objections to this workflow, I'll close all 
> the strict-transport-sec as resolution <- "fixed".  If issues arise 
> with any of the ticket's fixes in reviewing the spec, we can 
> selectively reopen. If new issues arise, then we submit new ticket(s).
Works for me.