Please delete ballot for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

[cindymorgan]

Describe the issue

From: "Warren Kumari" [email protected]
Subject: Whoops, wrong button on draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion…
To: "IESG_Secretary" [email protected], "The IESG" [email protected]
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:15:34 -0700

Hi there,

I generally complete my ballot writeup while doing my AD review (i.e before IETF LC) --that way it's all fresh in my mind, etc.
This time I accidentally hit "Save and issue ballot" instead of "Save", and so there is an IESG Eval even though the document hasn't had a LC yet.

Secretariat: Can you please unissue[0] the ballot?
IESG: Can you please ignore the ballot for now? IETF LC still needs to happen…

Thanks!
W
[0]: Hey, I think it should be a real word… perhaps recall?

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[wkumari]

If this is hard to fix it's not the end of the world -- I've asked other ADs to not ballot yet, and, well, not balloting is easy :-)

It would be nice though if the warned you that you are about to issue a ballot for a document which has not yet had an IETF LC -- I think that it used to do this, because I'm fairly sure I've seen the warning previously...

[rjsparks]

Manually removed that ballot and added a note to the document history.

[rjsparks]

The warning is currently issued by this:

datatracker/ietf/doc/views_ballot.py

Line 690 in 607a5c8

ballot_issue_danger=bool(prev_state.slug in ['ad-eval', 'lc']),

but this particular draft was in this state at the time (prev_state is the state the document was in when the view was entered):

>>> d
<Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion>
>>> d.get_state('draft-iesg')
<State: AD is watching>

[rjsparks]

The use of the watching draft-iesg state has been inconsistent between ADs, and has changed over time. Most uses of it went away when the ability to return to iesg-state idexists was added to the datatracker.

We could add watching to the above conditional, but it may have unintended consequences given other uses of that state.

@wkumari - what is your preference?

[wkumari]

I had actually forgotten that this document was in "AD Watching" state — I personally use this state when I've sent the document back to the WG for some additional fixes. This often means that there has been a significant delay, and the history is messy, and so (to me ) it seems extra useful to have the warning - but I get that everyone uses this state differently… My preference would be that the warning is shown — it's just a warning and ADs can choose to ignore it if they choose. The "failure" of showing a warning seems less bad than issuing a ballot before the IETF LC has completed… W

…

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:39 AM, Robert Sparks ***@***.***> wrote: The use of the watching draft-iesg state has been inconsistent between ADs, and has changed over time (most uses of it went away when the ability to return to iesg-state idexists was added to the datatracker. We could add watching to the above conditional, but it may have unintended consequences given other uses of that state. @wkumari <https://github.com/wkumari> - what is your preference? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7480 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDG3XFCFHSF3I7FDK6SWTTZEXZDLAVCNFSM6AAAAABINR2VRCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZXG4YTONJUGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rjsparks]

Moved the code change request into its own issue.