Re: Front-end delays

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> on 2005-06-16 01:53 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
>
> > Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sounds like a good idea.  However it requires direct integration with the
> > > tracker, which means that the tools team can't just put up a prototype,
> >
> > Not really - one could associate the WGLC with just the draft name, and 
> > use that name as the key into the tracker. A similar approach could be 
> > used to track charter deadlines.
>
>
> That won't feed the WGLC information into the tracker, which was the
> most salient point of Jeffrey's idea, I thought.  Without that, you're
> left with something close to what I first described.

Could we focus on tools *requirements*? This is a very good
conversation but what we need to distill is functional requirements.
If that means re-engineering the I-D tracker, so be it, but let's
cross that bridge when we come to it.

It would also be good to distill education requirements, and feed
them to the EDU team.

   Brian



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf