Re: Making the Tao a web page

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 04 June 2012 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB03C21F87D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ysPxY2D+dae for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603EE21F87D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1SbM5v-000PVm-3b; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:28:31 -0400
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:34:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page
Message-ID: <35398D42C139212863F6D771@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120603145115.09cfc558@resistor.net>
References: <20120530225655.19475.74871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE474406564976FC0A885D95@PST.JCK.COM> <DAEDF66E-8FB3-4A00-846A-FECE181E2EC3@vpnc.org> <4FC7FF09.4020701@inex.ie> <98BC45C2-3C58-4DC6-89FA-766B426778BF@vpnc.org> <4FC8AFA9.1020200@inex.ie> <9C30E960-D656-4651-9AB6-9ECEE5196E3D@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120603145115.09cfc558@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:34:41 -0000

--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 15:36 -0700 SM <sm@resistor.net>
wrote:

> At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote:
>> it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update,
>> but  the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read
>> takes place  when an update published as an RFC.
> 
> Seven individuals (approximate) submitted comments during the
> Last Call.  That's not much in terms of end-to-end read of the
> draft.

Subramanian,

I don't think that is a fair comparison.  First of all, the Last
Call spawned the whole thread about colloquial language.  I
don't have any way to know how many of those who participated in
that thread read all the way through the document and even less
way to guess how many people were enough turned off by it to
lose interest in the Last Call, maybe after having read the
document.  Second and more important, my suggestion that we go
in the direction of a web page or wiki spawned a separate thread
that is more about the philosophy of how to handle the document
rather than about the detailed content of the document itself.
Again, I have no idea how many people other than myself looked
through the document, decided that "publish as RFC?" was the
wrong question, and as the result of that decision, concluded
that my time was better spent on medium and editorial process
than on reporting specific document comments.  So you don't know
to what extent I, or anyone else in the "making it a web page"
threads read the document through either.

My guess is that more people have volunteered to help with the
web page approach on an ongoing basis than have read the
document carefully in the last week or so.  I further guess that
"on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than
getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it
takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the
community to notice.  But those are just guesses and my opinion.
YMMD.

>...
> HTTPbis has a good Wiki due to the efforts of two persons.
> The rest of the IETF, excluding the IESG, do not believe that
> it is worth the effort updating a Wiki.  Instead of discussing
> the above questions it is easier to create an Wiki page and
> leave it to anyone with a tools login who cares to update it.

See my responses to Eric and Melinda.

   john