Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

Henrik Levkowetz <> Tue, 27 March 2007 11:45 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWA7R-0004Tk-L4; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:45:41 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWA7Q-0004Ta-FE for; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:45:40 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWA7P-0000wf-12 for; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:45:40 -0400
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4056B383E0; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C97E3830B; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64F137E4C; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1HWA7N-0008Lg-88; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:37 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:31 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
References: <><><><> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Cc: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hi Pekka,

on 2007-03-27 11:52 Pekka Savola said the following:
> Hi,
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> Someone needs to give Henrik more publicity.
> ...
> I thought I would never continue these kinds of threads, but now that the 
> topic has drifted away from IETF68, I'll relax:
> IMHO, there are two issues (I wouldn't want to call them as such, as I'm 
> extremely happy with the tools as such) with the services:
>   1) They should (for most part) replace the current IETF official pages.
>      For example, a non-IETF-goer asked (IMHO appropriately), "why aren't
>      the "" the official page, instead of the less
>      informative official IETF page?
>      In other words, there has been a lot of very good tools activity, but
>      some of that should really be taken a few steps ahead into
>      'production' use.

Agreed to some extent, but there's a matter of how this is done.  For
instance, how much of the limited secretariat resources should be spent
on moving tools pages over to the NSS servers?  My viewpoint has been
that it's more important to get NSS to implement tracker extensions,
which will provide input of information not available today, making more
advanced services and information presentation possible.

If we find a solution which (for now) accomplish 1) above by better cross-
linking, the cost in NSS manpower and IASA funds would be much less, and
we could accomplish this much faster.

A final point is that if we move over to greater reliance on the tools
pages, I'd like us to handle the software running on the tools servers
so that it's clear that there's no danger of it being or becoming
proprietary.  Most of it's already clearly labelled with GPL or BSD
licenses, and I've set up a rsync service which I'll arrange for Bill
Fenner and some other people to use to keep copies of the tool scripts
on separate servers.

>   2) The tools site should have very easy changelog that describes all the
>      changes made to services (or at least gives pointers to distinct,
>      tool-specific changelogs).  Modifications and enhancements are made
>      all the time, and you can't really exploit all of them unless you know
>      what they are or stumble on them by accident.

Good point.  I'll set up a RSS and/or Atom feed for tool changelog
notes, and aggregate these into a once-per-week message on the 
tools-discuss list, and maybe a once-per-month message to ietf-announce.

Does this sound like a plan?


68ATTENDEES mailing list