Subject: Re: I-D archives available anywhere?

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:57:36 -0400 (EDT)

> The problem with this, of course, is that 'diff' is notoriously bad at
> distinguising between semantic and syntactic changes. 

try wdiff (gnu stuff)

Scott

---

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:16:53 -0500 (CDT)

>And *NO*, this is *NOT* a 'we need to use XML/HTML/etc' - we haven't waited
>the requisite 6 months before re-starting that flame war. ;)

Ah, but what about the "Should we keep archives of expired drafts" 
war?

;-)

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
Information Systems Security Officer
National Business Center
U. S. Dept. of the Interior
[email-masked]
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================

---

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:30:38 -0500 (CDT)

>maybe we need a FAC (Frequently Argued Controversies) file for the
>IETF list.  unlike an FAQ file which answers questions, an FAC file
>would summarize each side of each argument. that way, we wouldn't
>need to re-iterate those positions each time the topic came back
>up - we could simply say "see [url]".

Or, more likely, "RTFF."

;-)

RGF

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:05:14 -0700 (PDT)

> try wdiff (gnu stuff)

http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard/wdiff/HTML/

That looks good.  

But the practical matter of saving a wdiff for each i-d revision 
might be more trouble than its worth.  It's possible for a diff 
to be bigger than either of the source files, e.g., when sections 
get renumbered.  Anyway, the right thing to do is usually to ask 
the i-d author(s) if you need to know about previous versions.

What do the i-d publication staff think of the idea?

Cheers,
James

---

From: "Ian King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:55:14 -0700

Maybe as a required appendix to RFCs?  Of course, I can just see the new
flame wars over what is and isn't included in the "historical
[hysterical?] synopsis"....  

How about: we require that each argument to the list be expressed in
some fixed syntax (Prolog, anyone?) and the listserver scans each
submission.  If your argument has been parsed before, your submission
goes in the bit bucket.  (Science fiction scenario: the listserver,
being privy to months and years of logically-formatted arguments,
develops consciousness.  Imagine just what a nasty-tempered machine it
would be!)  -- Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:48 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D archives available anywhere? 

	From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

	> Let's keep our flame wars straight.  This is the scheduled
start
	> of the latest episode of "I-D's Should Not Be Expired."
	
	maybe we need a FAC (Frequently Argued Controversies) file for
the
	IETF list.  unlike an FAQ file which answers questions, an FAC
file
	would summarize each side of each argument. that way, we
wouldn't
	need to re-iterate those positions each time the topic came back
	up - we could simply say "see [url]".

Maybe you're joking, but I think it's an excellent idea. Not just for
flame-wars that periodically erupt, but for technical specs there should
be "these were the issues, these were the arguments on each side, this
is why we decided this". And not just "see the email archives for the
last 10 years", but having someone carefully extract the content and
summarize it succinctly. This comes up all the time. "Why do we have
that parameter there?" "I don't know...someone claimed it was needed for
something so we better not touch it."

Radia