Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker
RFC 6293

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Russ Housley) Yes

(Robert Sparks) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-14 for -)
No email
send info
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 :-)

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-14 for -)
No email
send info
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

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-12 for -)
No email
send info
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


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

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-12 for -)
No email
send info
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