Subject: Re: Introducing the ID tracker

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:37:15 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Dave Crocker writes:
>
>Mark> Or, just define a generic mechanism where arbitrary folk can sign up
>Mark> to "watch" a particular document.
>
>Robert's excellent suggestion is simpler for the folks running the service
>and it is entirely compatible with existing practise. (When a working group
>document is issued, the working group is copied on the notice.)
>

My concern here is the noise factor.  I sometimes make several updates 
a day to a single document, often because I did something like adding 
comments without changing the substate -- I then have to go back and 
update the record again.  I suspect a coarse-grained notification -- 
say, once per day -- will solve that problem.  I have no problem with 
the concept of automatic notification.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:02:29 -0500

On Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:37 PM -0500,
Steven M. Bellovin <[email-masked]> allegedly wrote:

>> Mark> Or, just define a generic mechanism where arbitrary folk can
>> sign up Mark> to "watch" a particular document.
>>
>> Robert's excellent suggestion is simpler for the folks running the
>> service and it is entirely compatible with existing practise. (When
>> a working group document is issued, the working group is copied on
>> the notice.)
>>
>

Personally I wouldn't consider a few messages, giving me clues about
what you are doing with/to a document, to be noise or disrupting.  Once
a day is acceptable to me, but don't promote the idea because you think
WG participants wouldn't like several messages a day.

swb

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:33:54 +0700

Date:        Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:02:29 -0500
    From:        "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Personally I wouldn't consider a few messages, giving me clues about
  | what you are doing with/to a document, to be noise or disrupting.  Once
  | a day is acceptable to me, but don't promote the idea because you think
  | WG participants wouldn't like several messages a day.

I agree, the total number of messages that relate to a draft from AD
actions upon it is going to be trivial in the grand scheme of things.

There might be a few in one day perhaps, personally, I'd love to see that
and actually know that some attention is being given to the draft!

If consolidating a number of updates into one message is easy to accomplish,
then fine - but it really isn't required.

kre