+1,000,000
The argument that an RFC, retrieved from the web, is more accessible than a web
page or wiki, retrieved from the web, does not reflect reality.
The argument that if the questions do not change much from venue to venue needs
to be an RFC, and not a web page or wiki, does not hold
On 12/7/2011 6:09 AM, George, Wes wrote:
I'm also open to suggestions as to the appropriate publication track for
thisdocument, whether I should look to have it sponsored as a GenArea doc or
simply
put it forward as an individual submission.
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:28 AM
To: George, Wes
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Travel/Attendees list FAQ
However I suggest that the document cast itself as a snapshot of an on-
going
documentation process, with the master copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/2011 06:27 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 12/7/2011 6:09 AM, George, Wes wrote:
I'm also open to suggestions as to the appropriate publication track for
thisdocument, whether I should look to have it sponsored as a GenArea doc or
simply
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which inherently a
static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense to convert the
contents of this document to a Wiki page that we could jointly edit and
maintain going forward?
Margaret
On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Dave
On 12/7/2011 6:40 AM, George, Wes wrote:
However I suggest that the document cast itself as a snapshot of an on-
going documentation process, with the master copy being an IETF Wiki; the
document should contain a point to the wiki.
[WEG] There is currently a pointer to the wiki, but I'll have
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which inherently
a static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense to convert the
contents of this document to a Wiki page that we could jointly edit and
maintain
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which
inherently a static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense
to convert the contents of this document to a Wiki page that we could
jointly edit and maintain
On 12/7/2011 9:28 AM, George, Wes wrote:
This is a list of the*questions* because they do not change much from one
meeting to the next. The document already recommends that the*answers* which
will be different for every venue be kept in a place where they are more easily
updated.
I
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 09:36:01AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
But note that there needs to be a different wiki for each IETF
meeting. That includes a different URL. We should preserve each
meeting's wiki as part of the meeting archive, rather than replacing
one meeting's content with the
On 12/07/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 09:36:01AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
But note that there needs to be a different wiki for each IETF
meeting. That includes a different URL. We should preserve each
meeting's wiki as part of the meeting archive, rather
On 12/7/2011 9:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 09:36:01AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
But note that there needs to be a different wiki for each IETF
meeting. That includes a different URL. We should preserve each
meeting's wiki as part of the meeting archive, rather
Wes,
On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:28 AM, George, Wes wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which
inherently a static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense
to convert the contents of this document to a
The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. (This is the kind of
information you should provide.)
At APRICOT, we've developed an Ops Manual[1] that covers everything
from room setup to no kareoke at the social event.
On 12/07/2011 10:33 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. (This is the kind of
information you should provide.)
I don't see any reason that couldn't be wikified, either.
I am not sure
I am not arguing against the wiki, I am just saying that there is
value in having a single file, or document, or maybe checklist
that can be retrieved (and printed) too. And we have lots of docs
that could hardly be described as formal.
But a template for the required information would indeed
On 12/7/2011 11:44 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I'm also pretty sure (not 100%, but somewhere north
of 50%) that there really aren't any serious archival requirements
for the material under discussion.
formal requirements, perhaps not.
however the collection of information that is provided for
On 12/07/2011 10:51 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
But a template for the required information would indeed be useful.
I guess I'm not seeing anything here that looks to me like
requirements, or anything here that can't be satisfied with
something totally open, like a wiki.
This whole business of
On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. (This is the kind of
information you should provide.)
+ lots...
I work for a company that is sponsoring an upcoming
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I think it's great that Wes put together
a proposal and I hope that it's seen as a starting point for
a wiki or some such rather than as yet something else that
needs an editor and needs an approval
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/07/2011 10:33 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. (This is the kind of
information you should provide.)
I don't see any reason
--On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:41 -0800 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Also, if it gets published as an RFC, it is going to be viewed
as a specification. I think it's best to avoid that and
just have a wiki.I would be surprised if this topic
continues to be as active
22 matches
Mail list logo
