hopefully the final result will be able to express the more complex
forms of wedgitude such as "your check was sent two years ago via IESG
express under tracking number XXXX and is currently being held at our
hub until it can be stapled to another check from a different working
group"
So, e.g., for draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit, is it enough to say "Waiting for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547 (IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup)
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities (Approved- Announcement sent)"?
(Note that the 2nd one is a REF that's not there of a REF that is
there). Is that too much to put on the summary page?
Would it also be useful to put a link to, e.g.,
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?doc=draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547&docx=on
for each dependency, to check further dependencies? (Yes, I should have
a "recurse and check all that dependency's dependencies" option)
(Note that these dependencies are all heuristically extracted and
are a "best case" scenario)
For draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib, is it sufficient to say "REFs cleared
on 2005/04/20", or would you want to see more detail, that it was
draft-ietf-mpls-bundle that was holding it up?
I'm starting to think that for most of the complex relationships, we
want a summary on the top level (e.g., draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit
could say "REF to 2 drafts not in queue") and a detail page that gives
you all the info - otherwise I'm concerned about cluttering up the
top page.
And, of course, a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps I could
find a way to fit http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf in
there.
Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf