On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:12, Bill Fenner wrote:
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?
Probably.
what I'm hoping for is a clear answer to the question "is there anything
I need to do / anyone I need to remind to get this document out".
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)
I think that would help, yes.
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?
If you can look at the historic state of a document's dependencies I
don't think it's necessary for the top-level view to mention a resolved
dependency..
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.
yup.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf