Thank you for the clarification, I see where my thinking was wrong.
If I have it right this time, it sounds like you need an acknowledgement
contract with the IESG.
You could periodically poll their database for changes in status to
documents under discussion or require them (thru contract) or request them
(thru respect) to notify you
From: Robert Elz [mailto:kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:16 PM
To: Alagna, Paul
Cc: 'Scott W Brim'; Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Crocker; Mark Allman;
Subject: Re: Introducing the ID tracker
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:57:11 -0500
From: "Alagna, Paul" <ALAGNAP(_at_)questdiagnostics(_dot_)com>
| The use of a master list to specify what version is
| current will stop a lot of noise. Suppose edits are to be made to
| to make version 6. [...]
I suspect you're missing what is going on here. This has nothing at all to
do with document editing or updates (or not directly).
The changes that we would like to monitor are to the IESG database that keep
track of what the IESG is doing with documents that have been submitted.
Docs that are in the process of being edited will generally just be sitting
in the "ID received, being ignored" state (which isn't the name the IESG
it, but expresses the intent... I'm too lazy to look up the correct label
now). That is, they're someone else's problem (the working group, or the
author) and the IESG isn't considering them at all.
It is only after the WG believes the doc is complete, and asks an AD to
the process of advancing the doc that the relevant state changes start to
happen. Just knowing for sure that AD received the "please advance"
and did something with it (even if that takes a few days or more to happen,
which is possible for all kinds of good reasons) would make change