Skip to main content

Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker
draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2011-04-19
08 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-04-18
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-04-18
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-04-18
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-04-18
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-04-18
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-04-18
08 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-04-14
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-08.txt
2011-04-14
08 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-04-14
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-04-14
08 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I'm just wondering if there is any existing web technology that would allow someone to express an interest in a objects satisfying a …
[Ballot comment]
I'm just wondering if there is any existing web technology that would allow someone to express an interest in a objects satisfying a certain criteria, and get updates, etc. accordingly. It seems funny that we need to build specific tools for our small database of drafts and tracker events. But what do I know, I'm just a poor little IP layer guy :-)
2011-04-14
08 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I'm just wondering if there is any existing web technology that would allow someone to express an interest in objects, and get updates, …
[Ballot comment]
I'm just wondering if there is any existing web technology that would allow someone to express an interest in objects, and get updates, etc. accordingly. It seems funny that we need to build specific tools for our small database of drafts and tracker events.
2011-04-14
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-14
08 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-14
08 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

There were three requirement-oriented thoughts I had on this most recent reading...

--- …
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

There were three requirement-oriented thoughts I had on this most recent reading...

---

As a requirement for an implementor, I found 2.1.1. "Requirement:
Lists of I-Ds and RFCs can be large" to be too vague. Is it saying
that a hard coded limit is OK provided it supports "hundreds of I-Ds
and dozens of RFCs"?

Would it not be better to specifically reuqire "no implementation
limit" to list size?

---

I don't find 2.1.2 sufficiently clear. It says "Every Datatracker
user can create a list." It does not say whether the limit is one
list per user. I have no feeling either way, but I feel the document
should be clear as it will significantly impact implementation.

---

Did I miss notification of changes to a list (not of changes to I-Ds
in a list)? I can consider:
- I-D / RFC added to list
- I-D / RFC removed from list
- list deleted
2011-04-14
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
08 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
08 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-04-12
08 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

  In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only …
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

  In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only *be* included once

Sec 2.3.3: r/changes/changed in:

  has not changes state
2011-04-12
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only included …
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only included once
                                                              ^ be

Sec 2.3.3: r/changes/changed in:

has not changes state
2011-04-12
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only included …
[Ballot comment]
Sec 1: r/sixTestVM/six

Sec 2.3.1: I think "be" is missing from the following:

In displays, a particular I-D or RFC should only included once
                                                                          ^ be

Sec 2.3.3: r/changes/changed in:

has not changes state
2011-04-12
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
08 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. Section 1.1:

      This would include not
      only I-Ds that are in the many WGs that directly …
[Ballot comment]
1. Section 1.1:

      This would include not
      only I-Ds that are in the many WGs that directly are changing the
      DNS (DNSEXT, DNSOP, BEHAVE, and so on), but also individual
      submissions, IAB I-Ds, and even IRTF research.

s/IRTF research/IRTF I-Ds/

2. Section 1.2

      the ability to get notifications when individual I-Ds from a list
      changes state

s/changes/change/

3. Section 1.3

What is the difference between "Approved" and "Sent to the RFC Editor"?

4. Section 2.3.2

o  Associated WG or RG

I think this needs to be

o  Associated WG or RG or IAB or IES
2011-04-12
08 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-11
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-10
08 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-08
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-04-08
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2011-04-08
08 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued
2011-04-08
08 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2011-04-06
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2011-03-31
08 Russ Housley State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-03-31
08 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-14
2011-03-31
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-07.txt
2011-03-18
08 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-03-17
08 Amanda Baber We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions.
2011-03-11
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2011-03-11
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2011-03-09
08 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Brian Pawlowski
2011-03-09
08 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Brian Pawlowski
2011-03-04
08 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2011-03-04
08 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: <> …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: <>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting WG
(genarea) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the
  Datatracker'
  as an Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community/

2011-03-04
08 Russ Housley Last Call was requested
2011-03-04
08 Russ Housley State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup.
2011-03-04
08 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-03-04
08 (System) Last call text was added
2011-03-04
08 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-02-22
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-02-22
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-06.txt
2011-02-22
08 Russ Housley State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
2011-02-21
08 Russ Housley State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-02-08
08 Russ Housley Ballot writeup text changed
2011-02-07
08 Russ Housley Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-01-29
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-05.txt
2011-01-17
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-04.txt
2010-12-21
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-03.txt
2010-11-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-02.txt
2010-10-21
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-01.txt
2010-10-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-00.txt