Re: [yang-doctors] Datatracker usage

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

This looks like a bug or mis-feature, and it's the way the system has 
been for a very long time. We'll investigate and clarify.

I the meantime, you can get the original review still from 
mailarchive.ietf.org:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22Yangdoctors%20early%20review%20of%20draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-34%22

RjS

On 1/15/24 10:18 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> > My recollection is that for small changes in the document, 
> especially when done right after the initial review, it’s ok for the 
> YD to update the initial review. Otherwise, it’s a > new review 
> requested by the WG owning the document.
>
> Our regular process is that for a new draft with new content a new 
> review is required.
>
> Though revising a review is possible. In this case I would assume that 
> one keeps the old text and adds to it.
>
> However, loosing the 00-review text on the server looks a bit unusual.
>
> May be Robert can check what happened on the server.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-yang-te-34-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2023-11-28/01/
>
> @Robert: The question is why the 00-review text got lost as a result 
> of revising.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mehmet
>
> *From:*yang-doctors <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Rahman
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2024 1:26 AM
> *To:* Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* YANG Doctors <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [yang-doctors] Datatracker usage
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>     On Jan 14, 2024, at 4:07 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     
>
>     On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 9:55 AM Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>
>     wrote:
>
>         Not sure what procedure you used but I'd have expected 00 to
>         have the initial review and 01 to have the new review.
>
>     Yes -- maybe it is just a WEB page issue, and the link to the old
>     review is wrong.
>
>     Rather than the old review was overwritten with the 01 version.
>
>     It is still not clear if the YANG doctor is supposed to review a
>     draft update
>
>     or if the submitter is supposed to request a new review.
>
> My recollection is that for small changes in the document, especially 
> when done right after the initial review, it’s ok for the YD to update 
> the initial review. Otherwise, it’s a new review requested by the WG 
> owning the document.
>
> I assume you clicked on ´correct review’? My guess is that it’s a 
> datatracker issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
>     Andy
>
>         On Sunday, January 14, 2024, 12:25:16 PM EST, Andy Bierman
>         <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         What is the official procedure for a followup review after the
>         authors have created a new version?
>
>         I was told to just revise the initial review on the WEB page.
>         (Wrong!)
>
>         E.g.
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-yang-te-34-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2023-11-28/01/
>
>         However, now it appears the first review of draft-34 is gone,
>         and only the 1 sentence
>
>         followup for draft-35 remains as the review.
>
>         I expected the review of draft-34 to be appended, but all
>         record of it is gone.
>
>         I suggest the IETF figure out a procedure and a tool for
>         followup YANG reviews.
>
>         Andy
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         yang-doctors mailing list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>