Subject: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:28:38 +0200

Hi,

I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some  
lines on the first page. The current text says:

>   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
>   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>   Drafts.
>
>   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six  
> months
>   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>
>   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
>   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
>
>   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
>   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
>
>   This Internet-Draft will expire on <date>.

The first URL was broken since the IETF web site redesign, but nobody  
has noticed.  That - to me - is a pretty strong indication that nobody  
has been using it. (It is now fixed.)

The second URL points to a list of FTP mirrors, fully half of which  
are defunct in some way (don't respond, DNS name doesn't resolve,  
contains stale content, etc.) Again, nobody has been noticing this.

Consequently, the proposal is to shorten the boilerplate text above to  
the following, saving five lines:

>   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
>   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
>   Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
>
>   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six  
> months
>   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>
>   This Internet-Draft will expire on <date>.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:03:06 +0100

Looks good to me!

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo)
> Sent: 27 October, 2009 11:29
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: "Scott Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:09:01 -0400

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:

> The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.

Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true.  That URL leads to a
query page, not a list of current drafts.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:32:01 +0100

Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some lines 
> on the first page. The current text says:
> 
>>   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
> The second URL points to a list of FTP mirrors, fully half of which are 
> defunct in some way (don't respond, DNS name doesn't resolve, contains 
> stale content, etc.) Again, nobody has been noticing this.
> 
> ...

Again: can we please stop making changes to things that aren't broken?

BR, Julian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:33:30 -0400

The idea is generally acceptable to me but:

>>   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  

While we're at it, these two sentences are contradictory.
"Internet-Drafts are a specific thing" but "some Internet-Drafts may be
something else".  Since you have (reasonably) eliminated reference to
areas and working groups, how about modifying this to say

> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) distributes its working
> documents as Internet-Drafts.  Note that other groups may also
> distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

?

>>   The list of current

As Scott Lawrence points out this isn't completely true.  How about:

> Current Internet-Drafts are available at

?

swb

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:39:16 +0200

> query page, not a list of current drafts.

The first bullet on that page says:

* All I-Ds   (sorted by submission date)   (sorted by filename)

We could link to the list (http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/all/)  
but the page takes a long time to load...

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:43:21 +0200

Hi,

...
> but the page takes a long time to load...

http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/ is both more correct (it  
is a list of current drafts) and loads faster. Made the change in my  
local copy.

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:53:11 +0200

Hi,

>> distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

I asked for feedback on the wgchairs list before posting here, and the  
discussion there also lead to some additional changes. John Klensin  
cautioned that more substantial changes are more difficult to fully vet.

I hence opted for changing the minimum number of words compared to the  
current boilerplate. The only reason I removed the "areas & working  
groups" bit was that I believe it's fully redundant and otherwise we'd  
need an extra line.

>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.

See my other email. I think http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/ 
current/ is best.

Lars

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:46:38 -0500

Hi, Julian,

>> The first URL was broken since the IETF web site redesign, but nobody has 
>> noticed.  That - to me - is a pretty strong indication that nobody has 
>> been using it. (It is now fixed.)
>>

I'm not the guy who has to keep syncing the tools with boilerplate changes, 
so I'm not sure how much of a vote I should get, but my vote would be that 
taking up that much of the first page of every draft with information that 
is wrong, but that nobody even cares about enough to notice that it's wrong, 
actually is broken.

I would support accepting the old format until there's a GOOD reason to 
revise the toolset anyway, but that's a different question.

Thanks for all you do in support of the community. I used your tools to 
produce a draft revision yesterday, so I definitely appreciate you!

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:52:05 -0500

Yeah, I got wrapped around this on the WGchairs list, too. Thanks, Jeff, for 
schooling me.

The problem is that "other groups" really is open-ended, but we don't mean 
"other groups somewhere in the inhabited galaxy, that produce working drafts 
using the same format", we mean "other groups like IAB that are closely 
related to the IETF, but are not the IETF, and who ALSO use the same 
Internet-Drafts format, submission process and repository". Is there a 
shorthand for this, or do we have to stay vague to the point of 
meaninglessness?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:01:15 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> ...
> I'm not the guy who has to keep syncing the tools with boilerplate 
> changes, so I'm not sure how much of a vote I should get, but my vote 
> would be that taking up that much of the first page of every draft with 
> information that is wrong, but that nobody even cares about enough to 
> notice that it's wrong, actually is broken.
> 

Thanks.

So, trying to rephrase:

1) Try to bundle all upcoming changes into a single one (headers & 
boilerplates, TLP changes, whatnot)

2) Attach a well-defined cut-over date to this change.

3) The changes should be well-defined for Internet Drafts and RFCs. As 
far as I can tell, that requires coordination between many parties, 
including IESG and RFC-Editor. Do not execute a change until all parties 
have agreed.

BR, Julian

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:15:13 -0400

Scott,

	Good point.  Not sure I completely agree on the interpretation
of the current wording, but I agree that it is improved by your
suggestion.

--
Eric Gray 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Brim
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:34 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

?

?

swb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:16:31 -0400

Lars,

	This can be fixed by changing by changing "is at" to "is 
available via"...

--
Eric 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:39 AM
To: Scott Lawrence
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Lars

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:23:38 -0400

Spencer,

	I am pretty sure it really is that open ended (i.e. - there is no
real restriction on who can submit an Internet Draft, other than that
they probably have to have Internet access, and that means that it is
difficult to say that "other groups" does not include any group in the
inhabited galaxy that has access to the Internet, and can produce a 
document that passes the "idnits minimal acceptability" test).

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:52 AM
To: Scott Brim; Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:25 -0500

Hi, Eric,

The guidance I was getting on the wgchairs mailing list was that "other 
groups" is limited to other groups that also use the Internet-Draft 
mechanism (including submissions, repositories, etc) - I was interpreting 
"other groups" more broadly, and was told that I was confused.

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; "Scott Brim" 
<[email-masked]>; "Lars Eggert" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Spencer,

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
Spencer Dawkins

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:27:35 -0400

Spencer,

	Perhaps they thought you confused, but perhaps they were 
wrong?

	As far as I know, the current process for publishing FOO
as an RFC is via submission of an Internet Draft.  Anyone can
do that.

--
Eric 

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:40 PM
To: Eric Gray; Scott Brim; Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Importance: High

Hi, Eric,

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; "Scott Brim" 

Spencer,

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:05:57 -0500

Apparently I was reading it too broadly - it's not just the format, it's the 
use of the submission process. But I'm still guessing - the only thing I had 
to go on was "other groups", and that's not a constrained set to me.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; "Scott Brim" 
<[email-masked]>; "Lars Eggert" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Spencer,

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:40 PM
To: Eric Gray; Scott Brim; Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Importance: High

Hi, Eric,

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; "Scott Brim"

Spencer,

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:12:35 -0700

>>  Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.

I think we are (correctly) getting tripped up on "distribute". Other groups don't distribute Internet Drafts: they write them and let the IETF distribute them. Also, we don't know if "most" will be true forever, regardless of what we hope.

Proposed change:

  Many Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
  Task Force (IETF); other groups and individuals create Internet-Drafts
  that are included in the repository that is maintained by the IETF.
  That repository is available at <some URL>.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:47:05 -0700

> Proposed change:
> 
> Many Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 
> Force (IETF); other groups and individuals create Internet-Drafts that are 
> included in the repository that is maintained by the IETF. That repository is
>  available at <some URL>.

Perhaps more simply and directly:

    The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) distributes and retains
Internet-Drafts, as working documents for its own activities and for other
groupsand individuals.  The repository for Internet-Drafts is available at <some
URL>.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:34:16 +0100

> is a list of current drafts) and loads faster. Made the change in my

I would actually prefer Eric Gray's suggestion "is available via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/".

That part of IETF datatracker is undergoing a rewrite, and while there
will be redirects from old URLs, the overall organization will change. 
And IMHO the search page (with a link to the full list) is probably
more useful to most users than the list (especially since that list 
doesn't contain even the document titles, so it's quite cryptic).

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:53:21 -0700

Hi Lars,
>contains stale content, etc.) Again, nobody has been noticing this.

The second URL is a redirection to the old IETF web site.  I don't 
think that it is best to point to the datatracker.  It would be 
better to use a location under www.ietf.org as the point of 
entry.  There are some participants in the HTTPbis WG or the Tools 
team that would be able to explain the long-term solution better than 
me as they have the knowledge when it comes to URI persistence 
[1].  The work may also benefit other IETF-related web sites.

   "At the end of the 20th century when this was written, "cool" was an
    epithet of approval particularly among young, indicating trendiness,
    quality, or appropriateness. In the rush to stake our DNS territory
    involved the choice of domain name and URI path were sometimes
    directed more toward apparent "coolness" than toward usefulness or
    longevity. This note is an attempt to redirect the energy behind
    the quest for coolness." [2]

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence.html
2. http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:29:50 +0200

Hi,

On 2009-10-28, at 11:53, SM wrote:
> The second URL is a redirection to the old IETF web site.

Yes.

> I don't think that it is best to point to the datatracker.

There is no "best" thing to point at, really. I believe that pointing  
at the datatracker is reasonable, and at least better than some  
(many?) other options.

> It would be
> entry.

Suggest one?

>  There are some participants in the HTTPbis WG or the Tools

Why wouldn't the datatracker URL be considered stable?

Lars

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:17 -0700

Hi Lars,
>at the datatracker is reasonable, and at least better than some

Yes, it is reasonable.

>Suggest one?

I don't think I have a good answer to that as I do not know much 
about the www.ietf.org requirements.  I would have to look at what 
information is published and also consider the constraints.

>Why wouldn't the datatracker URL be considered stable?

It can be considered stable.  I assume that it won't be 
http://datatracker[1-9].ietf.org/drafts/ or that the datatracker host 
won't be an internal resource in future.  There was an discussion 
about draft-hammer-hostmeta which may be of interest to anyone who 
would like to read more about well-known locations.

As the change you suggested looks simple, please do consider not 
taking my comments into account.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. the "cool" quote was not directed at you or any other participant.