Robert; Thank you for the clarification, I see where my thinking was wrong. If I have it right this time, it sounds like you need an acknowledgement contract with the IESG. You could periodically poll their database for changes in status to documents under discussion or require them (thru contract) or request them (thru respect) to notify you -----Original Message----- From: Robert Elz [mailto:kre@munnari.OZ.AU] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:16 PM To: Alagna, Paul Cc: 'Scott W Brim'; Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Crocker; Mark Allman; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Introducing the ID tracker Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:57:11 -0500 From: "Alagna, Paul" <ALAGNAP@questdiagnostics.com> Message-ID: <19DE307E1D15D61193690008C75D6E94030BF46A@TBHWMIS5> | The use of a master list to specify what version is | current will stop a lot of noise. Suppose edits are to be made to version 5 | to make version 6. [...] I suspect you're missing what is going on here. This has nothing at all to do with document editing or updates (or not directly). The changes that we would like to monitor are to the IESG database that keep track of what the IESG is doing with documents that have been submitted. Docs that are in the process of being edited will generally just be sitting in the "ID received, being ignored" state (which isn't the name the IESG give it, but expresses the intent... I'm too lazy to look up the correct label now). That is, they're someone else's problem (the working group, or the author) and the IESG isn't considering them at all. It is only after the WG believes the doc is complete, and asks an AD to start the process of advancing the doc that the relevant state changes start to happen. Just knowing for sure that AD received the "please advance" message and did something with it (even if that takes a few days or more to happen, which is possible for all kinds of good reasons) would make change notification useful. kre