Subject: RE: [newtrk] Comments on draft-klensin-newtrk-std-repurposing-00. txt

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:56:42 -0700

> I don't want to be disruptive, but I'm wondering if the
> next step is to take the proposal a little further, and
> eliminate the 'standards track' categories for RFCs themselves
> and move the designation entirely to the STD documents.

This would be a usefull start, but there is also an organization
issue here. At the moment finding members of the STD series
is a tedious process like remembering a long forgotten flag
for the ls command. If you go to the IETF web site and try to
find the STD series it takes quite a bit of time to find it
unless you start with quite a bit of knowledge about the
organization of the IETF etc.

If the IETF is going to be in the business of producing 
standards then that should be the first thing on the Web site.
At present it does not even merit a first level entry or
for that matter even a second or a third.

Why on earth would anyone waste their time getting HTTP moved
from Draft standard to Standard if nobody is ever going to 
notice, let alone care?

In the real world the Web site is the IETF. It is also a 
remarkable mirror of the organizational problems, there is
a confusion of entries with no logical or coherent organization.

This is not the fault of the webmaster. It is the fault of
the organization. Organizations that know what they are and 
where they are going have no problem expressing this on their
web site.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:06:55 -0700

Phillip,

I agree that having appropriate tools for automatically
tracking various work items in IETF is a critical component
for upgrading IETF processes. But there's a separate
group, [email-masked], working on specifying
improved IETF tools.

I would suggest, rather than discussing this on the
NEWTRK mailing list, the discussion of the IETF web site,
document processing tools, etc. be moved to that group.

    [email-masked]

Thanks!

Larry (member of tools-team)
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net

.