Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc-04.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> writes:

> This document is listed in the Individual Submissions section of the Agenda 
> for the upcoming telechat.  This is not correct.  It is a product of the 
> IPsec WG, and it belongs in the Protocol Actions section of the agenda.

The misordering of agenda items is a problem known to the
secretariat. It is being worked on and is part of automating the
agenda generation from stuff in ID tracker. Here is what Michael told
me earlier this week on this point: 

Michael Lee <mlee@foretec.com> writes:

> Thomas Narten wrote:

> >
> >In the two documents I cited, they are going for PS. Thus, they always
> >need to go in the protocol actions section (i.e, the first one). It
> >doesn't matter if they are individual submissions are not. So in that
> >case, the info is already there. Make sense (or is this still confusing)?
> >
> In the next day or so, I'll apply following algorithm to the Tracker in 
> the case of ID gets Added or Updated:

> If an ID is from RFC Editor Then
>     that ID will be belong to "via RFC Editor" Category
> Else
>     If the ID's intended status is BCP or Standards (PS,DS,S) Then
>         that ID will be belong to "Protocol Action"
>     Else
>          If Individual ID Then
>               that ID will belong to "Individual Submission"
>          Else ID will be belong to "Working Group Submission"
>          End If
>     End If
> End If

> I hope this will take care of the main stream of Agenda Categorizing.
> All other cases will be categorized manually.

> >
> >
> >>and b) when a document is new versus returning.
> >>
> >
> >I guess in the long term, ID tracker will know whether something has
> >been on the agenda before. In the "short" term, perhaps the "on
> >agenda" button modification we've talked with Michael about should add
> >another button/field that specifies whether an item is goin on the
> >agenda for first time, or whether it is a returning item?  Michael:
> >how do you in the long term think this will need to be done? I.e., can
> >you figure this out from internal state, or will it be easier/simpler
> >just to have the AD specify when putting on the agenda?
> >
> The "Short term" solution has been already implemented during SFO.
> However I've just reallized it's too hard to keep track all the 
> returning item manually for Jackie.
> So I'll change the code so the Tracker will automatically detect all 
> returing Agendas, soon.

> Thanks,
> Michael