Hi Michael,

I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF
we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual
document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF
should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like
the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For
example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related
because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to
use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't
comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change
in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was
requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond).

 Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of
views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not
all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see
that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a
new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related
to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are
examined by IESG.

AB


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>wrote:

>
> This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything
> that updated it.  I find the datatracker WG interface to really be
> useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/
> first.  I guess I could have instead gone to:
>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777
>
> but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat...
> (3777? 3737? 3733?)
>
> While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and
> in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list
> the other documents.  Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly
> explained:
>
> >http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were
> >published by the NOMCOM Working Group.  The NOMCOM Working Group was
> >open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777.
> >
> >The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is,
> >outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually
> >on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page.
>
> I wonder about this as a policy.
>
> Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I
> wanted
> quickly (RFC5680 it was)...
>
> While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
> consensus do not belong on a WG page.  But, if the document was the result
> of
> consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think
> that
> perhaps it should appear there anyway.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> tools-disc...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
>

Reply via email to