Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] How the datatracker uses the repository and archive. (was Re: Internet-draft repository and archive)

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Unless someone speaks soon, I will push to have this implemented thus:

* the link will point to 
www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns-01.txt
* The text above the link will say
     "A copy of the old Internet-Draft can be found here:"

When we get the index/search tools ported from tools, we can update the 
page to take better advantage of it.

RjS

On 6/18/14, 11:47 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 6/17/14, 3:15 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> This message is only about the datatracker proper. I will bring 
>> rfcdiff up in another thread.
>>
>> The good news is that the datatracker code is already using the 
>> repository correctly almost everywhere.
>>
>> Looking through the codebase, I find only two places were we point 
>> into tools.ietf.org for draft content.
>>
>> The first I don't _think_ is actively used. It's in draft/util, when 
>> run manually to extract metadata from draft contents.
>>
>> The second is for talking about expired drafts.
>>
>> Please look at
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-evidence-extns/
>>
>> It currently says:
>> This Internet-Draft is no longer active. Unofficial copies of old 
>> Internet-Drafts can be found here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns
>>
>> How should that be modified? Do we leave "Unofficial copies" and just 
>> change the URL to
>> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns-01.txt
>> ?
>>
>> Or do we wait until we've ported the index and search functionality 
>> from tools so that could be just
>> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns
>> ?
>
> The reference to tools.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns pulls 
> up the most recent version of the draft, in this case the -01 version.
>
> So pointing it at 
> www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-evidence-extns-01.txt would be a 
> direct replacement for the current functionality.
>
> However, I note that if the link had used /html/ instead of /id/, it 
> would have pulled up the html page with links to all of the versions. 
> And I think that that is more useful tool that where it is currently 
> pointing.
>
> Consequently, I think it might be BETTER to wait for search 
> functionality, allowing the datatracker to reference all of the 
> documents in the archive with that name.
>
>> Do we change the sentence that says "Unofficial copies of" to say 
>> "Copies of"?
>
> Why is it plural? If it stays as a reference to the single document, I 
> think it would be best written as:
>
> "A copy of the old Internet-Draft can be found here:"
>
>> Or do we show the contents of the draft from the archive (since we 
>> have it)
>> along with something to make it visually distinct?
>> (Possibly with a big [EXPIRED] marking)?
>
> I hear that Watermarks R Us sells some nice background images like 
> that. :-)
>
> I think keeping the link is just fine instead of using a watermark. It 
> emphasizes that the document is "gone" and you have to jump through 
> additional hoops to get at it.
>
>     Tony Hansen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development