On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:12, Bill Fenner wrote: > So, e.g., for draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit, is it enough to say "Waiting for > draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547 (IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup) > and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities (Approved- Announcement sent)"? > (Note that the 2nd one is a REF that's not there of a REF that is > there). Is that too much to put on the summary page? Probably. what I'm hoping for is a clear answer to the question "is there anything I need to do / anyone I need to remind to get this document out". > Would it also be useful to put a link to, e.g., > http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?doc=draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547&docx=on > for each dependency, to check further dependencies? (Yes, I should have > a "recurse and check all that dependency's dependencies" option) I think that would help, yes. > For draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib, is it sufficient to say "REFs cleared > on 2005/04/20", or would you want to see more detail, that it was > draft-ietf-mpls-bundle that was holding it up? If you can look at the historic state of a document's dependencies I don't think it's necessary for the top-level view to mention a resolved dependency.. > I'm starting to think that for most of the complex relationships, we > want a summary on the top level (e.g., draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit > could say "REF to 2 drafts not in queue") and a detail page that gives > you all the info - otherwise I'm concerned about cluttering up the > top page. yup. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf