Re: [Tools-discuss] Serving a partial documents (was Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts)

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Fri, 26 February 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446993A09A8 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
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 shbhreN6_eVO for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 546A43A0990 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.10.190] (mta-107-13-246-59.nc.rr.com [107.13.246.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CA5B1050E; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:07:11 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1614373631; bh=F5Q5Rk+VIkknqyrLrHRTQxBwonzweE3iaB7OExF/RZw=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=MQCtOle2nr2Svamtg/9do+mwsvvaNMG8SY66BjK7QbOO/KTRoMZsg3zLiJF3gZHh1 MGmmNq9lnlqqjJlyYSugT1neaDsRTTyuEfQN+km54oLf6bkHcdq0sx72u8BQ0nJ49b rwsOTxhJ/+HAzQeGNMJlMbd2ct+yaeIGI9u28v7Jm9oh25ZaFUb2MBwpOzsv7mO6KK e5A/eC4DLa7gHOyIRnBLaMqCmfHzpcnVjkbkALueN3/jXGcUSi63CSOwCgpXT+LeVH AkDGuGPtSVJhE/Sa7dHYy9Dv/m6qY4WMMjzvzq7KXEYuanGeDyY7dFE3SZ7L2ggZOs pa4I+BcPbi+tQ==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:07:10 -0500
Message-Id: <71BD1774-3B56-4443-AEA9-9DAA4114E7C2@bangj.com>
References: <CCE26FB3-B7B8-41FE-80C9-FB8F1FE9E5EF@tzi.org>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CCE26FB3-B7B8-41FE-80C9-FB8F1FE9E5EF@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18D52)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/4hJqOvT71Sfn4MBTgskCDnGMfkI>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Serving a partial documents (was Re: [rfc-i] Citing drafts)
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:07:15 -0000


> On Feb 26, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-02-26, at 20:40, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree it makes sense to serve the full document now, but I also think having a link for just the ‘document status’ would be useful.  I don’t care how fast your link is, you don’t want to keep refreshing some honkin’ long draft just to see if the SECDIR person finished their review, especially if it’s your draft.
> 
> +1.
> 
> There should be separate landing and status pages (and archive access pages, for getting a verbatim copy of the submission).
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

The number of “users” that want document meta-data << the number of “users” who want to read the document.

IMO, we should work to remove the tools server duality of documents and have an archive of documents that is served how people want to read them in a single place on the datatracker and a place for meta data WITHOUT the document so that there is only place to read the document.

Tom