Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
on 2005-06-16 01:53 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. However it requires direct integration with the
tracker, which means that the tools team can't just put up a prototype,
Not really - one could associate the WGLC with just the draft name, and
use that name as the key into the tracker. A similar approach could be
used to track charter deadlines.
That won't feed the WGLC information into the tracker, which was the
most salient point of Jeffrey's idea, I thought. Without that, you're
left with something close to what I first described.
Could we focus on tools *requirements*? This is a very good
conversation but what we need to distill is functional requirements.
If that means re-engineering the I-D tracker, so be it, but let's
cross that bridge when we come to it.
It would also be good to distill education requirements, and feed
them to the EDU team.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf