Re: [yaco-liaison-tool] The liaison tool: Status Update

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Emilio,

On 2011-05-11 18:39 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>     Hi Stephanie,
> 
>     I suppose that Henrik have to merge the changes and update the 
> production server. Then you will able to use the new features.

I believe I've done so, but can't see the submission date field when
I look at a liaison edit field with secretariat permissions.

Emilio, can you point me to a page on the beta server where I can see
how this should look, so I can try to find out what's happening here?


Best regards,

	Henrik

>     Best,
> 
> El 11/05/11 17:31, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>
>>
>> Hi Emilio,
>>
>> Thank you for doing this, however I don't see the editable field for
>> submission date in the tool. Could you please look into why this field
>> isn't visible?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have done the changes needed to add the new field. See
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/653
>>>
>>> Now the user can enter the submission date when sending a new liaison
>>> (or when editing an existing one).
>>>
>>> If the date enter is more than 30 days different than now a warning
>>> will be displayed when submitting the form.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> El 25/04/11 21:58, Russ Housley escribió:
>>>> You might want to pop up a warning if the date is seriously different
>>>> than now, just to confirm that the person means to use the provided date.
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It seems that anyone allowed to send liaisons (incoming or outgoing)
>>>>> may need to change the submission date.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think the best option is to add a submission date field into
>>>>> the form (prepopulated with the current date but editable).
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case anyone allowed to send liaisons will be able to falsify
>>>>> the submission date. If that's right I can do the appropriate
>>>>> changes in the code to add this field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> El 21/04/11 21:30, Russ Housley escribió:
>>>>>> Yes there should be an option -- for two reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Incoming Liaison Statements - sometimes other SDOs send them to
>>>>>> Chairs or ADs, which then get forwarded at some later point for
>>>>>> posting.
>>>>>> They should reflect the date that they were originally received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Outgoing Liaison Statements - again, mistakes happen. If the
>>>>>> tool is
>>>>>> not used to send it in the first place, when it is posted it should
>>>>>> reflect the date it was actually sent to the recipient SDO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Russ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you post a liaison, it will show the date it was posted -- there
>>>>>>> is no option (at least for us) to change the date to make it show the
>>>>>>> original submission date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henrik, Emilio:
>>>>>>> is there an option -- or should there be -- to update the date so that
>>>>>>> it reflects the actual submission date and not the (now very delayed)
>>>>>>> date that it will be posted? There is another liaison in the queue
>>>>>>> that Stephanie could not post, but now can, that will be similarly
>>>>>>> impacted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And to Adrian's other question, when the Secretariat posts a liaison,
>>>>>>> we have the option to "post only" or "post and send". Does a regular
>>>>>>> liaison manager have the ability to make such a distinction as well?
>>>>>>> It sounds as if Adrian might want to avoid a duplicate announcement
>>>>>>> since he already copied a bunch of folks on his initial attempt at
>>>>>>> posting the liaison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Alexa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie,
>>>>>>>> Do you know whether if *I* post it, it will show all the dates right
>>>>>>>> and not send another copy?
>>>>>>>> There is no really great urgency to getting a copy of the LS into the
>>>>>>>> tracker, but I would like to avoid any snafus with what is ultimately
>>>>>>>> recorded and what might get sent.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>>> PS - Tanks to all for working on the tool!
>>>>>>>> *From:*Stephanie McCammon [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*15 April 2011 21:24
>>>>>>>> *To:*Emilio A. Sánchez
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Henrik Levkowetz; Patrik Fältström; Alexa Morris; Russ Housley;
>>>>>>>> Eliot Lear; Ray Pelletier; Barney Glen;[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: The liaison tool: Status Update
>>>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>>> Henrik was able to do the merge, however the tool is still not
>>>>>>>> functioning properly. It still tells me that I am not allowed to send
>>>>>>>> a liaison to the ITU-T SG 15. Please look into this as soon as you
>>>>>>>> have a chance.
>>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>> The new liaison tool will not let me post the response liaison to the
>>>>>>>> ITU-T SG 15 regarding COM15-LS293-E, and while we are working this
>>>>>>>> out you may want to try posting it for yourself. The CC field should
>>>>>>>> now be editable for you. Please let me know if you have any
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last fix is applied in a repository branch, it needs to be merged
>>>>>>>> into trunk and then update the code of the production server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henrik, could you do the merge?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 12/04/11 17:24, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have just tried to post the liaison on behalf of Adrian Farrel
>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> still says that I am not allowed to send it and reverts the form
>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> saying that it is from me. Could you please look into this again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have fixed this issue in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/648
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now the tool takes into account which user are you
>>>>>>>> imporsonating in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> order to check if he/she is allowed to send a liaison to an
>>>>>>>> specific SDO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 08/04/11 19:58, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just tried to post an outgoing liaison and received an
>>>>>>>> error that said
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was not allowed to send an outgoing liaison to ITU-T
>>>>>>>> SG15. I was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> attempting to post it on behalf of Adrian Farrel who is
>>>>>>>> listed as the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liaison manager for ITU-T SG 15. Can this be fixed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-07 11:37 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now the field person of the LiaisonDetail
>>>>>>>> model stores the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PersonOrOrgInfo of the user that creates the
>>>>>>>> liaison. The real one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the secretariat is sending a liaisons the person
>>>>>>>> field has the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> secretariat user person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this info is not used to grant any privilege
>>>>>>>> over the liaisons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah. So that field could more properly have been
>>>>>>>> called 'creator'. Ok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henrik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 07/04/11 11:16, Henrik Levkowetz escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure you, Patrik and myself are
>>>>>>>> talking about the same thing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> here. See more below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-07 10:54 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 07/04/11 10:25, Henrik Levkowetz escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-06 16:03 "Emilio A.
>>>>>>>> Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand what data
>>>>>>>> want's to edit Patrik when he say
>>>>>>>> 'who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> holds the action item'. If he
>>>>>>>> refers to the person who can 'take
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> care'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of a liaison, this person is
>>>>>>>> selected automatically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if the SDO Liaison Manager is
>>>>>>>> changing, then liaisons which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> need to be taken care of will need to
>>>>>>>> be updated, no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm revising the code. The persons who
>>>>>>>> are allowed to 'take care' of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a liaison are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * The secretariat (always)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Any person whose email is listed under
>>>>>>>> 'cc', 'reply_to', 'poc',
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'response_contact', 'technical_contact'
>>>>>>>> and the submitter. Of course
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only if this person has an user in the
>>>>>>>> datatracker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One option is edit one of this field (but
>>>>>>>> this is so ugly).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that the best option is allow to
>>>>>>>> the 'take care' a if the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> current user is allowed to edit the
>>>>>>>> liaison (This check is done
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fly and checks if the user is currently
>>>>>>>> an sdo manager of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liaison).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's an entry in the LiaisonDetails class
>>>>>>>> which is 'person'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be the person who holds the token
>>>>>>>> to handle a liaison,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> maybe? If so, I think that's the entry Patrik
>>>>>>>> would like to update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if this entry isn't used anywhere, then
>>>>>>>> we need to figure out
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the distinction between the set of people who
>>>>>>>> 'can take care of' a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liaison, and the person who has the token.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henrik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/><http://www.amsl.com
>>>>>>>> <http://www.amsl.com/>> <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/><http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>> Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>> Phone: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
>>>>>>> Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com> <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Stephanie McCammon
>> IETF Registrar
>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>> Fremont, CA 94538
>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>
>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>> www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>