All;
All of this is consistent with documentation management per se. may
I suggest a refinement. The use of a master list to specify what version is
current will stop a lot of noise. Suppose edits are to be made to version 5
to make version 6. the general population can busy themselves with version 5
till version 6 is finished. They are notified through the master list. If
the master list is a hyperlink list, well so much the better.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:02 PM
To: Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Crocker
Cc: Mark Allman; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Introducing the ID tracker
On Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:37 PM -0500,
Steven M. Bellovin <smb(_at_)RESEARCH(_dot_)ATT(_dot_)COM> allegedly wrote:
In message <197230670977(_dot_)20021106153345(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>,
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.
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