Skip to main content

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

Yes

(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

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

Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-04-14)
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
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-04-12)
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

Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-04-14)
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 :-)
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-04-12)
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


Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()