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.