Re: [newtrk] IETF Process discussions - next steps

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Personally, I believe the best thing that could happen is
for somebody, or a few somebodys, to produce a web page that
does what http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html does
but better*. With that in front of us, it would be much easier
to have a discussion.

* i.e. with the standards track material organized into
"obsoletes" and "updates" threads, with the latest versions
first.

   Brian


John C Klensin wrote:
> For whatever it is worth, I think I am in almost complete
> agreement with Doug about the comments below.   But I still do
> not believe that, right now, the community is convinced enough
> that this is a problem to put more energy into solving it,
> especially in the light of probable IESG resistance.
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Wednesday, 16 August, 2006 12:26 -0700 Douglas Otis
> <dotis at mail-abuse.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Right now it seems that the community doesn't want to invest
> > > effort   in solving the problem.
> >
> > A small group can not be cognizant of how 700 documents are
> > being  used in the field years afterwards.  Although ISDs
> > offered a  solution, the administrative attention needed for
> > reviewing an  aggregation of modified dated material is still
> > likely best placed on  material related to current issues.
> > However ISDs, by providing a  stable reference, offered
> > significant value.
> >
> >
> > > As far as the structure of the RFC indexes are concerned,
> > > that's an   operational matter that I believe is best
> > > arranged directly with   the RFC Editor as part of the future
> > > contract (you will recall that   the RFP for that contract
> > > has been issued).
> >
> > More than just a set of indexes is needed.  Composing a
> > structure  retaining the ISD reference feature will likely
> > produce a greater  impact on a set of document's stature than
> > would RFC2026 categories.   While this effort could become a
> > task for the RFC editor, it seems  defining a suitable
> > structure would be something of general  interest.  The goal
> > would be to ensure a relational structure is  created by
> > interested parties in the earliest stages of a document's
> > development; a cradle to grave method for tracking endeavours,
> > rather  than just individual documents.
> >
> > Is there an RFC Editor related forum?
> >
> > -Doug
> > .
> > newtrk
> > resources:_____________________________________________________
> > web user interface:
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> > mhonarc archive:
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
> .
> newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html