feat: Distinguish I-Ds on WG plate from I-Ds on IESG plate

[evyncke]

Address #8783

Added a new search_heading with "Outside of the WG Internet-Draft" when IESG-state != idexists

Using "outside" will make the I-Ds outside of the WG plate be listed after "Active" and "Expired" but before "RFC"

[rjsparks]

We can define a sort that is not alphabetical with very little work.

I think something like "Drafts with the IESG" would be a better heading.

I don't think we currently can get into a position where we have a non-idexists iesg state for drafts in other streams, but we would have a problem with search results for individual submissions with the IESG that would today appear in related documents.

This will have enough impact that the PR should come with tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.73%. Comparing base (ea8377d) to head (371c7e7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9214      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.74%   88.73%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         320      320              
  Lines       41674    41677       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        36985    36984       -1     
- Misses       4689     4693       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[evyncke]

This will have enough impact that the PR should come with tests.

I will finally have to dig in this part of the code ;-)

[evyncke]

I think something like "Drafts with the IESG" would be a better heading.

Humm the plural filter won't work then :-( moreover there should then be a RFC Editor search_heading

[rjsparks]

The plural decoration is really overkill for section headers like this - a section that has only one draft but with "drafts" in the section header isn't going damage the reader's comprehension.

"With the RFC Editor" seems good too, but this looks like something that needs some design and definitely some tests to make sure we're doing the right thing with drafts of all provenance.

[rjsparks]

shifting to draft while aspects discussed in-person are addressed.

[evyncke]

@rjsparks when you have time, you may want to review the extended test coverage.