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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

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 This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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