RE: [newtrk] draft-rousskov-newtrk-id-state-00

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

1) note: there is room on the charter for a pointer to an "additional 
information" page for the WG. I encourage all WGs to have such a page. 
Unfortunately, for the time being, there is no centralized facility to 
offer WG chairs as a hosting site.

2) what Alex is proposing would be the editor's best attempt at reflecting 
the status of the WG at the moment the draft is published. I don't see how 
it could represent anything else.



--On 5. april 2004 22:02 -0700 Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rousskov-newtrk-id-state-00.txt
>
> There are a couple of problems with the mechanism. The state of
> a draft, the state of consensus on a draft, changes more rapidly
> than the draft itself. So putting the state of the draft inside
> the draft leads to a problem -- you submit a draft, then poll the
> working group for consensus, then, after the working group has
> discussed the draft, the state changes.
>
> Since the status of drafts and working group progress changes frequently
> and, unlike drafts, doesn't need to be stable, my suggestion is to
> leave the internet drafts alone, and focus on the working group
> web page.
>
> Secondly, it's unlikely that the status will fit into a limited number
> of neat categories. While it would be nice if you could just
> assign a token out of a simple enumeration, but often the status
> is much more complex.
>
> My suggestion is this:
>
> Every working group has a web page, but the chairs and draft authors
> don't have much input into it.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/newtrk-charter.html
>
> says "No Current Internet-Drafts", for example. What if each
> working group had, on its web page, for each internet draft,
> a "status" field which a working group chair could change?
>
> In fact, what if each Internet Draft had a web page which listed,
> at a minimum, its status, but also might contain open issues,
> proposed resolutions, pointers to discussions in the mail archives,
> etc.?
>
> This would give you more transparency, it would allow for
> better updates, and would give participants better information.
> We used issue-list tables in many working groups, and they've
> been quite useful. Why don't we make them more generally available?
>
> In the simplest case, the draft-status page could be auto-generated,
> with a simple administrative form for updating the status among the
> enumerated set, but we could make it possible for people to make
> more extensive updates.
>
> It might be convenient if each Internet Draft contained the URL
> of the web page that described its status. (And, even better, an issue
> list with issues, proposals, possible resolutions, etc, but that's
> another story).
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
> .
> newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
>
>




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