RE: New tool prototypes

Could we not begin by at least listing drafts with a name
draft-<editor>-<wg>-..

on the status page?

I think we can assume most of us do the right thing, and the scale of the
problem where an inappropriate draft is listed on the page is much less than
the utility of having the good ones listed on the page?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ólafur Guðmundsson
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz; ietf-announce@ietf.org; WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: New tool prototypes
> 
> At 07:08 04/03/2005, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
> >    2. Workgroup status pages showing the current status of the drafts
> >    belonging to a workgroup: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> >As these are prototypes, they are not expected to be perfect or complete,
> >but they are expected to be useful to the community as-is, and comments
> >on functionality, missing features and bugs are welcome!
> >
> >Comments will be taken as input to specification of full-fledged versions
> >of similar tools, and may also be fed back into the prototypes.
> 
> 
> I think we need at least one more status state.
> In my working group we encourage people to write up their ideas as
> discussion platform. After 2-5 ideas are presented and discussed they
> morph into one final product.
> Frequently the first and second versions of these drafts
> are draft-<editor>-<wg> (our suggested notation) before making it
> to draft-ietf-<wg>.
> 
> The status: "Expired" to me means the draft has been dropped
> but that is frequently not accurate.
> I would like to be able to indicate that a draft has
> been "Replaced by" another draft.
> 
> Example: on DNSEXT page in the Expired category are drafts:
>          draft-ietf-dnsext-parent-stores-zone-keys
>          draft-ietf-dnsext-parent-sig
> These two[1] drafts motivated and gave way to
>          draft-ietf-dnsext-delegation-signer  RFC 3658
> 
>  From historical perspective I would like to somehow acknowledge
> the people that contributed to the process and how they did that.
> 
> I realize this is a larger issue than just the tool, as the
> back end database does not have this information.
> 
>          Olafur
> 
> [1] At least one of these draft was had a draft-<editor> draft
> before it became a WG draft.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 