From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU]
*> If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool
that spits out the
*> current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages
with the RFCs
*> indexed by status.
*>
Presumably you mean:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html
Which is linked from the rfc-editor's site, not from the home page of
the IETF whose documents they are.
If we go to www.ietf.org with the objective of finding current Internet
standards and follow the obvious navigation links we don't get there.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html is worse than useless, unless you know that
the RFC-Editor's pages is where the status is you cannot find what you
went to get. It is not logical to look on the RFC-Editor's site for
information that results from decisions of the IESG.
It would be much better to merge the two pages into one so that someone
who comes looking for the information on an RFC can find it.
Equally the RFC-Editor Queue information is really tracking the status
of internet drafts, not RFCs.
Basically the Web site design is from a much earlier era when people
accessed the web from 14K dial up and web site designers were taught to
only put five navigation options per web page. If you look at the OASIS
and W3C pages you will see that this particular guideline has been long
abandonded. Taxonomic navigation only works if people already understand
the categories being used, the categories used on the IETF site are
vague, confused and arbitrary.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf