Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 23 February 2021 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B593A2B12; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gOioh-rzYNr; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CEF73A2B0D; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F59F4075E; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEAFF4075E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36NExNU6IkyX for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373F9F40758 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DlKn34dwBzyY6; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:35:35 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6034F22E.20707@btconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:35:35 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635780135.096823-46f7d913ea63ebe7d21a6dd8e626423a
Message-Id: <ACE0DA09-6A26-4ADA-B2B1-DDDA9D3727CE@tzi.org>
References: <mailman.1.1614024001.24742.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <7C7234B7EF4B131225B9C92E@PSB> <78399BE7-2519-45DA-9FEA-71D92E5549DC@tzi.org> <96AB7E5BDFAAF70FD1F3BB9D@PSB> <6034F22E.20707@btconnect.com>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

> 
> For me, the datatracker page that I get to from a datatracker WG page has the metadata that I need to work, whereas the tools page is sadly lacking in that regard.  Yes, there is less metadata but I need that missing metadata so leaving it out is counter-productive.

For what?

My point is that the datatracker page is great for a standards jockey.
The tools page was better for an implementer or a student.

Both have their place (and it is good they link to each other!), but I’d argue the landing page should be more like the latter.
(Maybe there should be a cookie to cause auto-forwarding for the standards jockeys?)

> Also, from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<i-d name> I get what is to me a clear display of the document history from which I can navigate to (almost) any earlier version.  I am puzzled that there should be any difficulty in clicking on the green or purple bar to select a different version (except when the submissions window is closing and authors submit three versions in under 24 hours and the bars shrink to zero).

Yes, that visualization is not bad if you need that information.
If you don’t, it is a waste of space.

> I think that the datatracker took a giant leap forward at some point from being unusable to being the best way into the work of the IETF so my home page became Active WGs. I often want to return there so that having the nav bar is most useful.

No contest on the opinion that the datatracker is awesome!
It really shows what situated software can evolve into.
But the point of situated software is that it is always optimized for a specific group of users, and I’m arguing there are two distinct groups here.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest