Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Unable to upload text agenda to DT [was Re: New DT bug: unable to upload bluesheets in text format]

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 07:49:21 -0500

The mime type checking on DT materials manager is causing more problems. 
  I suggest removing type checking for the time being.

I'm trying to upload the attached (using chrome) as an agenda update and 
am seeing:

> Revise Agenda for interim-2018-detnet-02 : detnet
> × Found content with unexpected mime type: text/x-c++. Expected one of text/plain, text/html.
> Agenda file to upload. Note that you can only upload agendas in txt or html formats.
> 
> Found content with unexpected mime type: text/x-c++. Expected one of text/plain, text/html.

Please help the interim is in 2 days!

Thank you,
Lou (as WG chair)

On 1/23/2018 10:28 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>      I was trying to upload a bluesheet for a virtual interim in text 
> format at got the following error:
> 
> Found content with unexpected mime type: text/plain. Expected one of 
> application/pdf.
> 
> other formats should be allowed at least for virtual interims.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lou
> 
> PS please remember Postel's law...

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:10:23 +0100

Hi Lou,

Looking at this now.

But will you please stop spamming the mailing lists with bug reports,
when you (as evidenced by the inclusion in the addressee list) are
perfectly well aware of the proper bug report email address?

	Henrik

On 2018-01-29 13:49, Lou Berger wrote:
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [email-masked]
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [email-masked]
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:31:12 +0100

Agenda uploaded.

	Henrik

On 2018-01-29 13:49, Lou Berger wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Django-project mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/django-project
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 08:35:35 -0500

> Looking at this now.

Thank you.

> perfectly well aware of the proper bug report email address?

I'm completely unsure at this point who does what.

WRT this message
- DT project is included as the formal bug submission point, but past
limited distribution elicited zero response.
- tools-dev is included as DT is a paid support service
- tools-discuss is included as I suggested a technical change (following
postel's lay and not checking mime type)

If you sense frustration on my part, you're right. Basic IETF process
infrastructure is getting fancier, but harder to use - at least from my
perspective as a WG chair.  FWIW I really don't enjoy being a 'squeaky
wheel' - I just want to get my work done and move on to the next task.
If DT makes it harder, it'll just be less useful.

Lou

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:04:15 +0100

Lou:

Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
or send email to [email-masked].

> limited distribution elicited zero response.

Example please?  I'm not aware of any report to [email-masked]
that has not been acted on, either immediately or by recording it in the
issue tracker and acting on it as priority indicates.

> - tools-dev is included as DT is a paid support service

I don't understand your argument here?  How does this bug report require
tools development coordination?  Is it appropriate to elevate every
bug report to discussion in the monthly tools call?  I don't think so.
Please recall Robert's earlier reply to a question from you:

>> Tools-development is the place where the people guiding and doing the 
>> work on the tools coordinate - it's essentially the list for the team 
>> that meets on the tools calls.

> postel's lay and not checking mime type)

No, you were making a bug report.  It suggested a technical change, yes,
but in the absence of any data on why the problem appeared it could not
lead to any reasonable discussion.  And again: every bug report does not
have to be discussed.  The vast majority simply needs to be investigated
and corrected.  Tools-discuss is appropriate when it's not clear that
something is a bug, or whether a feature is salient and desirable, or
to see if an idea has support or could be refined.

> If DT makes it harder, it'll just be less useful.

Do you at all understand the frustration of people trying to provide
support (primarily Robert and myself) when we ask people again and again
and again and again to provide bug reports in the appropriate channels,
and from some people see the bug reports consistently sent elsewhere?

Trying to support some people is a joy.  Others, not so much.

Do you truly believe that you get better response from people by banging
them over the head?

	Henrik

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:43:31 -0500

Thank you for doing the manual post of the agenda. I won't waste anyone 
elses time by discussing this further on on any of these lists.