Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] producing links to datatracker rather than tools version of docs

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:53:06 -0700

Olaf,

Thanks for the followup.

On 9/6/2011 1:54 PM, Olaf Kolkman (Acting RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> I am not a member of the tools list[*] and I have not followed the discussion
> closely, however a few remarks seem relevant: From the RFC-Editors
> perspective the copy as published by the RFC-Editor on the RFC-Editor webpage
> is the authoritative source and reference.

A couple of folk seem to have taken my note as suggesting that "authoritative" 
references and locations be changed.  That was not my intent.  My intent is to 
suggest taking steps to make the datatracker more visible.  That's quite 
different from "deprecating" particular archives.

(My understanding is that the datatracker /is/ intended to replace the 
equivalent tools.ietf.org mechanism, however.)

We are, after all, spending a heck of a lot of money on the datatracker and one 
would think we would want people to find it and even be told about it ahead of 
time, for specific documents, not just as a detached construct.

 > Also, the benefits that you point
> out are something that I would advise a future RSE to seriously look at
> implementing on the RFC Editor site.

Fair point.

> On a more personal note I'd add that once an RFC is published the History,
> IESG Record and Errata are only relevant to folk that are deeply embedded to
> the IETF context.

So, implementers and others who are not "embedded to the IETF context" don't 
care about Errata?  I would not have expected you to think that.

I thought that failure to integrate Errata with RFCs was considered a problem by 
rather more than esoteric IETFers.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net