Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call

["Alex Rousskov" <[e-mail]>]

> "should this working group develop process(es) with the aims
>  described in the ID draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt?"

"No" because, IMHO, we need to move away from placing each document
into a single box/folder to a model where each document may have
multiple labels/attributes attached, and where many "views" of the
IETF document set co-exist.

The failure of the current rigid one-document/one-label model is clear (to
me). Moving documents from one box to another is a waste of resources in
most trivial cases and a mistake in non-trivial cases (where neither of the
two boxes can be the only right place).

I hope that the multiple-attributes approach will help provide the
"right" information to IETF clients (where the definition of the
"right view" is often client-specific!).

If the Cruft proposal can be morphed into a "Let's document what folks
claim about each standard" proposal, I would support it (along with
a good interface to create and access claims).

Thank you,

Alex.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html