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

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

I can see two ways of dealing with this issue, there are probably more:

- Make the Atom feeds not only per-draft, but more sophisticated. 
Example feed templates:

* All drafts authored by X
* All drafts of the Y WG (which we already have, BTW)
* All drafts whose name/title includes the term Z.

- Alternatively, we could publish and maintain OPML files for common 
collections, e.g. one per WG. [I know you dislike OPML, but it works for 
me]. But this in an inferior solution because people would have to 
update the OPML file (list of feeds) manually.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 11/03/2010 03:57 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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