Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Slides for the face-to-face BoF next week

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 03 November 2010 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B79728C0E5 for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.66
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.441, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NaC6cetyALWq for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ED928C0E7 for <>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA3DvsdO044627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240801c8f719f687b0@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <> <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[]> <> <>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:51 -0700
To: Yaron Sheffer <>,
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Slides for the face-to-face BoF next week
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:57:53 -0000

At 9:28 AM +0200 11/3/10, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>Reiterating and possibly clarifying what others have said in the past:
>I think about 80% of this project is a waste of IETF resources.
>I suggest that we concentrate ONLY on providing very granular Atom feeds for draft status changes, Then, we can leave everything else (graphic presentation, update periods, privacy, sharing) to the users. People can use desktop RSS readers, or the easier but more limited Web-based alternatives, e.g. Google Reader.
>With the proposal on the table, what we're getting ourselves into is yet another enterprise-level Web application, with all that that involves. Yes, even Web application security.

A clarifying question: If we have such granular per-draft Atom feeds (which is not at all difficult to create), are you proposing that the user must subscribe to them one-by-one? That is, you see more cost than benefit to making an IETF-hosted tool that would help them select groups of drafts and to keep those groups up-to-date (such as when a new draft is added to a WG)?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium