On 3/14/11 2:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
1) If we publish this as an RFC, note that imgur.com will only keep
an image if it's viewed at least once every three months.
Good catch. I have added a note in the upcoming -08 that the sentence
removed before publication. FWIW, I do not know whether or not there is
an intention to publish this document as an RFC.
2) In the list of things constituting an "update to an RFC", could
you call out marking an RFC as Historic, and changing the maturity
level of an RFC in place (such as was done for 5652)
Sure. Done in -07.
3) 2.1.2 talks of the ease of use to create a datatracker account. I
think we have that already through the tools system. Are you thinking
this will require the creation of a different system?
Getting a Datatracker account is different than getting a Tools account.
Currently, going to <https://datatracker.ietf.org/> does not show you
how to get a Datatracker account. Even if you try the meme of "try to
log in and see what happens if you fail", you do not get presented with
a "here's how to get a Datatracker account" message. If we expect these
tools to be widely-used, we need to be sure that it is easier than it is
today to get a Datatracker account.
On 3/14/11 2:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
How much would the list of attributes in 2.1.6 need to be expanded
to make one of these user-defined lists
enough to satisfy the initial "Reporting Requirements" in section
4.3 of draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns-00?
Should we add the ability to match against the values (or absence of
value) of a state for the various state machines tracked by the
Given that the document is completely new and has had thin review so
far, we might be better off waiting for it to progress and doing a
revision to the tool than waiting to know what the actual states are.
Note that the wording in that section is quite indefinite: "For example,
the initial set of discrepancies could include...". It would be easy to
add more attributes to the ones in 2.1.6 later.
Ietf mailing list