Subject: [proto-team] Re: CORRECTED: Two PROTO questions

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:41:58 -0400

[PROTO folks, see attached mail from Brian.]

Hi Brian,

I think that we wanted to make sure that the basic idea would work 
before making changes to the tracker, etc.  I think that the fact 
that PROTO can work and that it has substantial benefits has been 
amply demonstrated now, and that making corresponding changes to the 
tracker at this point would be appropriate.

The idea, IMO, would be to have a "shepherd" for each document, in 
addition to the "responsible AD".  In some cases, these might be the 
same person, but in many cases, there would be a responsible AD and a 
separate shepherd (one of the WG chairs).  We have two choices here:

- We can continue our current model where everyone who has write 
access to the tracker can access everything and what they do access 
is based on policy/judgement.  In this case, I think that the tracker 
changes would consist of adding a field to indicate which user is 
the PROTO shepherd for each document and giving all of the 
participating WG chairs tracker accounts.

- We can implement a tiered access-control system for the tracker. 
Since there is currently no access control besides "write access" or 
"read-only", this would probably be quite a complex task.  We would 
have to decide what access control points/levels (per tracker action, 
per document, etc.) we need.  We would also have to decide what 
access each group/person should get (ADs, shepherds, secretariat, 
IANA, etc.).

I'd tend to go for the first choice, but there have been (perhaps 
valid) concerns voiced about giving all of the WG chairs (~200 
people) write access to the tracker.  If we choose the second route, 
though, we should expect a major design effort followed by a very 
significant implementation effort.

Margaret

At 12:09 PM +0200 10/7/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>PLEASE respond to this copy, not to the previous one that
>got sent to Margaret Carpenter (my wife) who was puzzled...
>
>-----------------
>
>I'm not sure that previous mails from me to the PROTO team have
>always got through, so let me just write direct to this subset
>(forwarding to the whole team is welcome).
>
>Firstly, would you be able to give a short progress report
>to the Wednesday plenary in Vancouver? I've provisionally
>reserved a ten minute slot.
>
>Secondly, from some comments Allison made, and from simple
>observation, it's clear that PROTO shepherds are severely
>hampered by their inability to do things like updating
>writeups in the tracker and even maybe triggering certain
>state changes in the tracker.
>
>I don't know what position Harald took, but I am absolutely
>open to requesting a set of tracker enhancements for the
>benefit of the shepherds. It might be too big a package of
>work to be handled via Bill's wish list, but that's a detail.
>
>However, nothing will happen without a requirement
>statement from the PROTO team. Over to you...
>
>      Brian

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:32:29 -0400

Hi Brian,

We could certainly coordinate a 10 minute plenary report, but I'm not 
sure what you want it to cover...  Thoughts?

Margaret

At 1:37 PM +0200 10/11/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I'm inclined to agree that as long as non-ADs can't actually
>ballot, complex access control is probably too expensive.
>
>However, there is some degree of access control since we can't
>vote for each other but Amy can vote for any of us, so perhaps
>limiting certain fields to ADs wouldn't be as much work as we
>might fear - it may be worth putting the question to Mike Lee.
>
>Most urgently - will one of you be ready to give a 10 minute
>report in plenary?
>
>    Brian
>
>
>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>amply demonstrated now, and that making corresponding changes to 
>>the tracker at this point would be appropriate.
>>addition to the "responsible AD".  In some cases, these might be 
>>the same person, but in many cases, there would be a responsible AD 
>>and a separate shepherd (one of the WG chairs).  We have two 
>>choices here:
>>is based on policy/judgement.  In this case, I think that the 
>>tracker changes would consist of adding a field to indicate which 
>>user is the PROTO shepherd for each document and giving all of the 
>>Since there is currently no access control besides "write access" 
>>or "read-only", this would probably be quite a complex task.  We 
>>would have to decide what access control points/levels (per tracker 
>>action, per document, etc.) we need.  We would also have to decide 
>>what access each group/person should get (ADs, shepherds, 
>>secretariat, IANA, etc.).
>>people) write access to the tracker.  If we choose the second 
>>route, though, we should expect a major design effort followed by a 
>>very significant implementation effort.
>>  Margaret
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:37:18 +0200

Brian

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> before making changes to the tracker, etc.  I think that the fact that 
> PROTO can work and that it has substantial benefits has been amply 
> demonstrated now, and that making corresponding changes to the tracker 
> at this point would be appropriate.
> 
> - We can continue our current model where everyone who has write access 
> to the tracker can access everything and what they do access is based on 
> policy/judgement.  In this case, I think that the tracker changes would 
> consist of adding a field to indicate which user is the PROTO shepherd 
> for each document and giving all of the participating WG chairs tracker 
> accounts.
> 
> - We can implement a tiered access-control system for the tracker. Since 
> there is currently no access control besides "write access" or 
> "read-only", this would probably be quite a complex task.  We would have 
> to decide what access control points/levels (per tracker action, per 
> document, etc.) we need.  We would also have to decide what access each 
> group/person should get (ADs, shepherds, secretariat, IANA, etc.).
> 
> I'd tend to go for the first choice, but there have been (perhaps valid) 
> concerns voiced about giving all of the WG chairs (~200 people) write 
> access to the tracker.  If we choose the second route, though, we should 
> expect a major design effort followed by a very significant 
> implementation effort.
> 
> Margaret
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:44:37 +0200

I'd suggest

1. A reminder to everybody of what PROTO is and why it matters.

2. Status, and first conclusions about effectiveness.

3. Next steps

(I'm operating on the principle that the various teams should be
visible to the community; we had Tools last time.)

     Brian

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>> changes would consist of adding a field to indicate which user is the 
>>> PROTO shepherd for each document and giving all of the participating 
>>> WG chairs tracker accounts.