[rfc-i] Future interaction of the Datatracker and the RFC Editor's tracker

[Bob Hinden]

The RFP for this work can be found at:

   http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Alternate-Stream-Specifications-RFP-2010-03-31.pdf

   All RFP are at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfpsrfis.html

The deliverables section of the RFP is relevant for this discussion:

Deliverables / Tasks

1. The Vendor shall refine the I-D, Requirements on I-D Tracker Extensions for IAB and IRTF
   Document Shepherds, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf- tracker-ext-01.txt by
   1 July 2010. The focus of this revision will be to expand the document to cover the Independent
   Submissions stream, and of course, incorporate comments and feedback from stakeholders and anyone
   else from the Internet community who takes an interest in the work. The document shall describe three
   separate state machines, one for each of the supported streams.

2. The Vendor will participate in IETF 78 in Maastricht, Netherlands on 25-30 July 2010, including the
   code sprint on the day before the meeting, to refine and revise the Requirements on I-D Tracker
   Extensions for IAB and IRTF Document Shepherds.

3. The last deliverable will be the submission of a revised I-D on “Requirements on I-D Tracker Extensions
   for IAB and IRTF Document Shepherds by 20 August 2010.

Bob



On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> On 6/28/2010 3:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> -<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker>  for the IAB,
>> ISE, and IRTF streams
> 
> I have a basic question:
> 
>   Your proposal appears to take each (new) stream in isolation and invent a state machine for it.  Why did you do this?
> 
> I would, instead, have expected that you would have taken the existing, tested state machine, cloned it, and then modified it as appropriate, with careful explanation for each change.
> 
> The key phrase, here is "existing, tested".  Start with a stable base of known behavior, and then modify it as little as possible.  It is a much lower-risk development path.
> 
> 
>> The current list of RFC Editor tracker states is:
> ...
>> Based on the drafts that Ed and I are writing, I believe that the following
>> needs to happen simultaneously with the Datatracker being updated:
> 
> Has this been developed in conjunction with the RFC Editor?
> 
> I would expect that any proposal for changing an existing, critical operation would be developed in concert with the folks responsible for that operation, to ensure compatibility with their maintaining service.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest