RE: I-D submission tool
--On Thursday, 07 February, 2008 09:28 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > >> For the second, it claims that the file isn't "plain text" and >> won't post it or even provide a manual submission path. The >> file is output or xml2rfc, has proper CRLF line endings, and, >> if it contains any non-ASCII characters or serious format >> misbehavior, the online version of idnits can't find it, even >> in very verbose mode. [rt.amsl.com #1799] > > I also encountered this problem (rt.amsl.com #1730), and after > some debugging, discovered what the problem was: the > submission tool uses the "file" program to check whether the > file is plain text or not, and (apparently) the "file" program > on the new servers behaves slightly differently from the old > one. > > In particular, if you have the string "(if approved)" on your > cover page, some versions of "file" (at least some Linux > distributions) will identify your draft as "Lisp/Scheme > program text" instead of just ASCII :-) So we get a choice of either * Not getting drafts posted or * Violating the IESG's instructions about how I-Ds that are intended for standards track are laid out. Gee. Ray, while meeting site choices are ultimately judgment calls and about tradeoffs, this is unambiguously preventing work from getting done. Today is Thursday and we've got a posting cutoff a week from Monday. Is it reasonable to assume that this has been assigned a priority in, or close to, the "even if they have to work all night" range? And, by the way, is the ticket tracker database public? If not, why not? And, if so, why do there not appear to be any links to it from either the Secretariat or Tools pages? best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: missing drafts
Hi, This mail is directed to the authors of the 5 drafts which unhappily were lost during the submission process, before being placed in the internet-drafts archive. You need to re-submit the draft; but please don't do this until the database situation has been straightened out. If you try to do it right now, the submission tool will reject the re-submission because it thinks the version in question has already been submitted If you have already submitted your draft with a new version number, we really need to clean up the database *and* correct the draft so that it shows the right revision -- we'll get back to you on the best way of doing that. (Although it's not strictly speaking my job to intervene here, I'm part of the people doing the transition testing, and also one of the authors of one of the offending drafts, and I just discovered the problems with just re-submitting the way Jim described below. And since right now it's night-time for Jim and Glen and the AMS folks, I choose to send this out to prevent the situation from becoming even more messy by more people re-submitting wrongly numbered drafts...) Henrik On 2008-02-06 00:41 James Galvin said the following: > Andy, > > You need to report these things to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Apparently there were some issues immediately after the cut-over > through part of Friday, 1 February. Based on reports received at > the time AMS addressed the issues, at least there have not been any > reports since last Friday. > > The advice is to resubmit your drafts. Unfortunately, anything > that has not appeared by now is not present and can not be > recovered. > > Jim > > > > > -- On Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:00 AM -0800 Andy Bierman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding missing drafts -- > >> Hi, >> >> Several drafts posted on the morning of Feb. 1 are returning '404 >> not found' errors. These 5 were posted in sequence, at 10:36 AM >> PT: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang- >> 01.txt >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-ers-scvp-06. >> txt >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-badra-ecdhe-tls-psk-03. >> txt >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notif >> ication-message-03.txt >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-config-fra >> mework-15.txt >> >> >> Any others? >> >> thanks, >> Andy >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, David Kessens wrote: > > Most european cities are served by Aer Lingus and by Ryan Air which is > quite possible the cheapest airline on earth. Ryanair and Aer Lingus are the amongst the worst airlines in Europe. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1206/airline.html Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FAEROES SOUTHEAST ICELAND: WEST SEVERE GALE 9 TO VIOLENT STORM 11, BACKING SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, BECOMING CYCLONIC IN FAEROES LATER. HIGH OR VERY HIGH BECOMING VERY ROUGH. RAIN OR SHOWERS, SOME WINTRY. POOR BECOMING GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: missing drafts
At 11:20 +0100 2/7/08, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: I appreciate what you are doing. I just have a question that maybe isn't to be answered by you (as messenger): >This mail is directed to the authors of the 5 drafts which unhappily >were lost during the submission process, before being placed in the >internet-drafts archive. I submitted two drafts that might have fallen into this crevice. Or they might just be taking a long time to process. What's the appropriate time out before retransmitting? (I.e., am I one of the 5? Is it known there are only 5?) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Mail archives, backups. Sometimes I think the true beneficiaries of standards work are the suppliers of disk drives. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D submission tool
At Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:43 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Thursday, 07 February, 2008 09:28 +0200 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > John C Klensin wrote: > > > >> For the second, it claims that the file isn't "plain text" and > >> won't post it or even provide a manual submission path. The > >> file is output or xml2rfc, has proper CRLF line endings, and, > >> if it contains any non-ASCII characters or serious format > >> misbehavior, the online version of idnits can't find it, even > >> in very verbose mode. [rt.amsl.com #1799] > > > > I also encountered this problem (rt.amsl.com #1730), and after > > some debugging, discovered what the problem was: the > > submission tool uses the "file" program to check whether the > > file is plain text or not, and (apparently) the "file" program > > on the new servers behaves slightly differently from the old > > one. > > > > In particular, if you have the string "(if approved)" on your > > cover page, some versions of "file" (at least some Linux > > distributions) will identify your draft as "Lisp/Scheme > > program text" instead of just ASCII :-) > > > > So we get a choice of either > > * Not getting drafts posted or > > * Violating the IESG's instructions about how I-Ds that > are intended for standards track are laid out. > > Gee. > > Ray, while meeting site choices are ultimately judgment calls > and about tradeoffs, this is unambiguously preventing work from > getting done. Today is Thursday and we've got a posting cutoff > a week from Monday. It's also worth noting that manually posted drafts (which is what I fell back to after running into this bug) do not appear to be showing up especially fast. draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346bis-09 was submitted after COB on Mon and isn't in the repository yet. Obviously, it's not a disaster if drafts which are postd through exceptional paths take 2+ days to show up, but if that's going to be the normal path, that's a little less attractive. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D submission tool
... > In particular, if you have the string "(if approved)" on your cover > page, some versions of "file" (at least some Linux distributions) > will identify your draft as "Lisp/Scheme program text" instead of > just ASCII :-) (oh (dear)) However, we have to keep a sense of proportion. Having been one of the pre-transition testers (although not of this particular tool), I've seen enough to know that the AMS folk have been investing tremendous effort to find and quickly fix problems. They deserve thanks and understanding, which is not to say that bugs shouldn't be fixed ASAP. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: missing drafts
Hi Edward, On 2008-02-07 14:29 Edward Lewis said the following: > At 11:20 +0100 2/7/08, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > I appreciate what you are doing. I just have a question that maybe > isn't to be answered by you (as messenger): > >> This mail is directed to the authors of the 5 drafts which unhappily >> were lost during the submission process, before being placed in the >> internet-drafts archive. > > I submitted two drafts that might have fallen into this crevice. Or > they might just be taking a long time to process. What's the > appropriate time out before retransmitting? 1 day, I'd say, for manual (email) submission. 1 second for automated submission (through the web submission tool). > (I.e., am I one of the 5? Is it known there are only 5?) It is not known that there are only 5. I did sample the id-announcement list around the known 5, without finding additional examples of announced drafts which are not in the archives, but that's not really conclusive. If your drafts have still not appeared in the drafts archive, I'd suggest sending a note to ietf-action, giving the names of your drafts, and requesting information about their posting (or not) to the archives. Cc: me if you like. Regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D submission tool
On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > However, we have to keep a sense of proportion. Having been one of > the pre-transition testers (although not of this particular tool), > I've seen enough to know that the AMS folk have been investing > tremendous effort to find and quickly fix problems. They deserve > thanks and understanding, which is not to say that bugs shouldn't > be fixed ASAP. violent agreement. They're working double shifts, and experiencing problems of a nature that helps justify the decision to transition. Folks, let me discard the kimono for a moment and ask for forbearance. The comments in this thread so far have been to the mark, but the IETF list and the mumble-attendees lists are well known for people saying some pretty unnecessary things. In this case, the NSS secretariat managed to not communicate to the AMS secretariat basic things like "we run rsync", and configuration files that the NSS secretariat used that lived in someone's home directory without CVS-or-whatever control and were deleted as private because of what directory they were in. The fact that the transition has gone as smoothly as it has - and it has in fact gone very well for the most part - reflects a very high level of professionalism at AMS and a huge amount of hard work on the part of a small and very dedicated team, and a high level of cooperation between the AMS engineers and the tools team. If you have issues that need to be addressed, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The trouble ticket system is working. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] IETF 72 --> Dublin!
On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > However, there are obvious logistical concerns, especially at lunch > time. Is 90 minutes really enough time to bus into town, eat lunch, > and get back? Lunch is always a problem. That's why we have a sandwich stand - to diminish exactly this concern. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Fred Baker wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> However, there are obvious logistical concerns, especially at lunch >> time. Is 90 minutes really enough time to bus into town, eat lunch, >> and get back? > > Lunch is always a problem. That's why we have a sandwich stand - to > diminish exactly this concern. > If 1000+ people are all trying to get lunch at the same time, a hotel coffee shop and a sandwich stand will probably not cut it. Adjusting the schedule for a 2 hour lunch would be better if traveling was the best option for lunch cost/selection. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:13PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:40PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: > > > > I really have a hard time being sympathetic to this complaint. If > > the purpose of the IETF is open discussion and cross-pollination, > > what does it matter where we are so long as there's comfortable > > access to the expertise needed? Is there an unwritten requirement > > that IETFs are placed to afford us sightseeing? To afford us access > > to restaurants? > > Well, many IETF'ers get tired of eating at the same hotel restaurant, > day after day, for the whole week. Also a common problem is that many > hotel restaurants are not well equipped to deal with a very large > number of people all showing up at the resturant at the same time (+/- > 10 minutes), thus flooding the kitchen with orders and resulting in > glacial service times. I remember one of the first times we were at > Minneapolis, and I made a mistake of eating at the hotel restaurant > for lunch, and the food not showing up at the table until something > like 5 or 10 minutes before the next working group meeting was > supposed to start. Needless to say, that was the last time I > frequented that hotel restaurant the whole week! Fortunately in > Minneapolis there were other restaurant options that were a close walk > away from the hotel. convience is one thing, medical/religious options are much more constrained in a "remote" location. for those who have food allegies, or other dietary restrictions, this could be problematic. -bill > - Ted > > [1] http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2007/10/08/sous-vide-revisited/ > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 115 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 8 00:53:01 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 6.09% |7 | 8.07% |71974 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.09% |7 | 8.00% |71325 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.22% |6 | 5.66% |50482 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.48% |4 | 6.07% |54142 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.22% |6 | 3.72% |33136 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.22% |6 | 3.58% |31902 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 5.98% |53279 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.61% |3 | 4.01% |35767 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.48% |4 | 2.51% |22344 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.61% |3 | 2.09% |18616 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.61% |3 | 2.07% |18468 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 2.53% |22574 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.61% |3 | 1.60% |14279 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 3.00% |26792 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 2.79% |24899 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.90% |16918 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.72% |15373 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.71% |15230 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.60% |14241 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.47% |13134 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.42% |12685 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.39% |12377 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.38% |12311 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.35% |12047 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.31% |11656 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.30% |11556 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.28% |11413 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.27% |11340 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.20% |10730 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.17% |10450 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.11% | 9874 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.08% | 9588 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.06% | 9474 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.74% |2 | 1.04% | 9301 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 1.50% |13346 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 1.12% | 9959 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.92% | 8206 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.69% | 6180 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.66% | 5928 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.65% | 5767 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.64% | 5692 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.57% | 5069 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.56% | 5030 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.56% | 4982 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.55% | 4930 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.55% | 4902 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.54% | 4853 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.54% | 4778 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.51% | 4550 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.51% | 4505 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.50% | 4500 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.50% | 4441 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.87% |1 | 0.49% | 4328 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 115 |100.00% | 891623 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
