Subject: [iola-conversion-tool] "Intended std level" on Add/Edit screen

From: Cindy Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:13:48 -0800

On the Add/Edit screen (e.g. https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp/edit/info/), was the "Intended status" field (in the production version) changed to "Intended std level" for a reason?  Because I read that as "Intended Standard level," but not all I-Ds/RFC are on the standards track.

Best regards,
Cindy

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:55:29 +0100

> On the Add/Edit screen (e.g. https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp/edit/info/), was the "Intended status" field (in the production version) changed to "Intended std level"…

Hm, the name of the underlying attribute changed and it appears that
changed the form, too.

Regarding the name, I read it as "intended standardization level". The
reason we're going with it in the database is that "status" is a vague
word - for a draft/RFC we've consolidated several entities ending up
with a bunch of different states/statuses so it ends up being
important that we have descriptive names.

And it appears we have no good word for standards track maturity level
+ non-standards track maturity levels + BCP, so that's why it ended up
being standardization level. Does that make sense?

I can easily change the form back to say intended status, but if you
think it's okay, I'd prefer if the interface uses the same terminology
as the database?

OIe

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:18:40 +0100

Hi Cindy, Amy, Ole,

> think it's okay, I'd prefer if the interface uses the same terminology

As Ole says, since we are moving in the direction of displaying many
different status fields (WG status, IESG status, RFC-Ed status, and
more (including the (Internet Std/Proposed Std/Informational/Experimental/...))
status, we need to be more explicit than saying just "Intended status".

Any appropriately descriptive term for the intended standardization level
is OK, as long as it can be understood and is distinct from all the other
status fields we show ...

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:43:44 -0600

The main document page currently labels this with " Intended RFC status:"

On 2/22/12 8:18 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> 2012/2/21 Cindy Morgan<[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> iola-conversion-tool mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iola-conversion-tool

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:46:54 +0100

> The main document page currently labels this with " Intended RFC status:"

That seems good to me.

	Henrik

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:57 +0100

>> The main document page currently labels this with " Intended RFC status:"

Do you think "RFC status" is clear enough once it's not intended anymore?

Ole

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:23:10 -0600

On 2/22/12 3:14 PM, Ole Laursen wrote:
> 2012/2/22 Henrik Levkowetz<[email-masked]>:
Are you asking what to show on the main document page when you are 
displaying an RFC?
"RFC status" makes sense there. When you're looking at a version of the 
draft that led to it,
I would still say "intended".

If you're asking about the Edit Info form, we need to be careful - 
remember that we're going
to be adding (very soon now) the ability to issue ballots against 
changing this status (moving
from Proposed to Standard or to Historic for instance), and those are 
Intended status until approved.

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:18:28 +0100

2012/2/22 Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>:
> displaying an RFC? "RFC status" makes sense there. When you're looking at
> a version of the draft that led to it, I would still say "intended".

Okay, yes, that's what I was asking. I'll get this fixed.

> If you're asking about the Edit Info form, we need to be careful - remember
> that we're going to be adding (very soon now) the ability to issue ballots
> against changing this status (moving from Proposed to Standard or to Historic
> for instance), and those are Intended status until approved.

Right.

Ole

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:35:42 +0100

>> for instance), and those are Intended status until approved.

Fix deployed.

	Henrik