Re: [Tools-discuss] Some oddities on IAB/IESG "WG pages"

["Bill Fenner" <fenner at fenron.com>]

On 3/6/08, Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>  >> On http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/, it's not obvious why
>  >> 'draft-zinin-early-review' is listed as an IESG document.
>  >
>  > Well, right.  But guess what I'm going to say here ,;-) ...
>  >
>  > That what the ietf database has it classified as ,,:-}
>  >
>  > Suggestions for action/improvement?
>
>
> I wonder what IETF database you're talking about?  The public
>  datatracker does not know anything about draft-zinin-early-review.

You can see this database in action at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-zinin-early-review/ .

"IETF Working Group: Internet Engineering Steering Group" is a little
odd but gets the point across.

>  With regard to the two IAB documents, until a document moves out of
>  the "I-D exists" state, it appears it cannot be associated with WG or
>  group context.

That's not the case - there are many, many working group drafts in "I-D exists".

>  As an improvement, I would consider WG documents all those documents
>  which have draft-ietf-<wg> or draft-{iab,iesg} naming and additionally
>  those which are specifically marked as a WG/group document in the
>  tracker.

The IESG as a policy started moving away from allowing documents that
violate these assumptions (e.g., the policy became "resubmit the
document with a new name" instead of "change the field in the database
for the old document"), but there are still exceptions.

  Bill
_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss