[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do drafts need to pass IDnits to be posted?
All,
I sent a few mails on this yesterday, but they don't seem to have
been posted.
At the risk of repeating myself.
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
The TOC requirement is ironic as the percentage of a 15 page document
that is required boiler plate is now pretty high. It should be
increased by at least the number of pages of boiler plate. Further,
it's not clear that a TOC is actually that important in the days of
search engines, editors, etc.
A TOC is a great way to get a quick idea of a document's structure and
organization without plowing through the whole thing. Other tools don't
do that very well.
I completely agree that a TOC is a good thing.
yes it is - it helps enhancing the quality of reviews
the entire idea of posting a draft is to get it reviewed
The question from this
thread seems to be "is it such a good thing that we should bounce an ID
submission until the draft includes a TOC, if ID-nits says it should
have one?"
well there are two things here
the requiremFrom wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org Fri Jun 27 05:28:00 2008
Return-Path: <wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: wgchairs-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-wgchairs-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDFC3A68B0;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: wgchairs at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA943A68B0
for <wgchairs at core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 2veomDRk+56r for <wgchairs at core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neo.viciousnest.net (neo.viciousnest.net [192.71.80.124])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09323A67A7
for <wgchairs at ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by neo.viciousnest.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930EB1269;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:28:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from neo.viciousnest.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (neo [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 31813-09; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:27:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pat.acreo.se [217.151.195.214])
by neo.viciousnest.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC6F125A;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:27:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4864DCC1.5090803 at pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:27:45 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa at pi.nu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer at wonderhamster.org>
Subject: Re: Do drafts need to pass IDnits to be posted?
References: <48639373.7030803 at isode.com> <4863AC2F.7090902 at piuha.net><884679E4-BC45-4864-A1FB-4C89880C12E6 at nokia.com> <002701c8d7ee$84c8ce80$6801a8c0 at oemcomputer>
<098f01c8d84c$cfa832c0$6501a8c0 at china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <098f01c8d84c$cfa832c0$6501a8c0 at china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at viciousnest.net
Cc: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs at ietf.org>, Bill Fenner <fenner at fenron.com>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,
<mailto:wgchairs-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/wgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,
<mailto:wgchairs-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org
All,
I sent a few mails on this yesterday, but they don't seem to have
been posted.
At the risk of repeating myself.
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
The TOC requirement is ironic as the percentage of a 15 page document
that is required boiler plate is now pretty high. It should be
increased by at least the number of pages of boiler plate. Further,
it's not clear that a TOC is actually that important in the days of
search engines, editors, etc.
A TOC is a great way to get a quick idea of a document's structure and
organization without plowing through the whole thing. Other tools don't
do that very well.
I completely agree that a TOC is a good thing.
yes it is - it helps enhancing the quality of reviews
the entire idea of posting a draft is to get it reviewed
The question from this
thread seems to be "is it such a good thing that we should bounce an ID
submission until the draft includes a TOC, if ID-nits says it should
have one?"
well there are two things here
the requirement of aent of a ToC is not in ID-nits
the requirement of a ToC is in the ID guideline, together with
boilerplates and other such stuff
it is fairly fuzzily document, is says "if more than 15 pages, please
include a ToC"
I'd say "no".
I'd say "it depends"
I'm not sure that 15 pages is the right figure, especially since the
boilerplate info has increased quite a bit since that figure were chosen
I'm fairly sure that large documents without a ToC is counter-productive
with respect to review
I'm very sure that I don't want to have a 150 pages document without
a ToC.
There might be possible to find a middle ground here
1. if we allow "no ToC" for a -00 version, but give a strong waring that
the ToC needs to be included in the next version
2. require that the ToC in included for wg documents
3. have a look at what size of a document where we need to enforce a ToC
(15 pages + boiler plate for -01 drafts, and 50 pages for all
drafts ?)
I note from the excellent tools page for MEDIACTRL drafts (just to pick
on my own working groups) that
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mediactrl/draft-ietf-mediactrl-ivr-control-package/
includes a hyperlink for "nits". Perhaps one resolution is to allow a
submitter to say "submit it anyway", and then include a note in ID
announcements that says "this draft does not pass ID-nits, but the
submitter chose to publish it anyway".
yes with the rules above in place
The ID-nits checklist is useful. Running it automatically at submission
time is useful (please don't stop). Allowing a human to override the
normal check, and providing an indication that this has been done, seems
useful as well.
well - I'm almost as concerned about the humans as the automated process
my take is that we are here to produce good and sound standards, we
should not confuse this with "easy to submit"
Could we hear comments from the people who actually wrote the ID-nits
and the ID-guidelines?
/Loa
Thanks,
Spencer
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson at acreo.se
loa at pi.nu
ToC is not in ID-nits
the requirement of a ToC is in the ID guideline, together with
boilerplates and other such stuff
it is fairly fuzzily document, is says "if more than 15 pages, please
include a ToC"
I'd say "no".
I'd say "it depends"
I'm not sure that 15 pages is the right figure, especially since the
boilerplate info has increased quite a bit since that figure were chosen
I'm fairly sure that large documents without a ToC is counter-productive
with respect to review
I'm very sure that I don't want to have a 150 pages document without
a ToC.
There might be possible to find a middle ground here
1. if we allow "no ToC" for a -00 version, but give a strong waring that
the ToC needs to be included in the next version
2. require that the ToC in included for wg documents
3. have a look at what size of a document where we need to enforce a ToC
(15 pages + boiler plate for -01 drafts, and 50 pages for all
drafts ?)
I note from the excellent tools page for MEDIACTRL drafts (just to pick
on my own working groups) that
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mediactrl/draft-ietf-mediactrl-ivr-control-package/
includes a hyperlink for "nits". Perhaps one resolution is to allow a
submitter to say "submit it anyway", and then include a note in ID
announcements that says "this draft does not pass ID-nits, but the
submitter chose to publish it anyway".
yes with the rules above in place
The ID-nits checklist is useful. Running it automatically at submission
time is useful (please don't stop). Allowing a human to override the
normal check, and providing an indication that this has been done, seems
useful as well.
well - I'm almost as concerned about the humans as the automated process
my take is that we are here to produce good and sound standards, we
should not confuse this with "easy to submit"
Could we hear comments from the people who actually wrote the ID-nits
and the ID-guidelines?
/Loa
Thanks,
Spencer
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson at acreo.se
loa at pi.nu