Re: [Tools-implementation] Different topic: pointing to drafts from the datatracker

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 9/16/20 8:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> On Sep 16, 2020, at 8:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Signed PGP part
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> On 2020-09-15 20:15, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> You've seen the thread with Carsten, Michael, and others about how the
>>> advent of v3 html has put pressure on what URLs for a draft that people
>>> might reference (from a paper).
>>>
>>> I think there are many things we might do with the feedback in that
>>> thread. One is fairly quick and easy - I think we have places where the
>>> datatracker points to www.ietf.org/id/ for drafts. I propose we change
>>> all of those to point to www.ietf.org/archive/id instead.
>> Sounds reasonable, although I think the only places we currently don't
>> point at /archive/id/ is in the draft announcement emails.  If we change
>> those, too, then maybe it's time to ask the IESG to simply ditch the
>> separate active drafts directory altogether.
>>
>> Having seen how things worked 20 years ago, and how things have evolved,
>> the active-drafts repository made a lot of sense at a time when there
>> was no datatracker, no tools site, and the only way to get drafts was to
>> pull them (via http* or ftp) from the active drafts repository.  But
>> today, the utility of that in parallel with /archive/id/ is so marginal,
>> and the extra bother sufficiently large, that I think it could be time to
>> move to not having separate active drafts and archived drafts directories.
> I'm not sure that I totally agree.  I like to rsync the current drafts.  I do not want all of them on my laptop.
Would a place that let you choose what drafts you wanted with a filter 
work better for you? (Is all active drafts really what you want?)
>
> Russ
>