While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such
as ad-sponsoring and discuss-criteria), IMHO the same information
could be placed in "ordinary" web pages without losing much -- and
perhaps gaining something in the process.
Currently, we have similar information scattered over random web pages
on ietf.org, random pages in IESG wiki, and the IONs (with different
procedures and tools for updating them). My "reading between the lines"
interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was
considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for
maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. (This may well have been
correct, BTW -- but perhaps the secretariat transition will bring
some new efforts to update www.ietf.org as well?)
But looking forward, and considering the question "what should be done
about IONs", the answer is less clear. If IONs encourage people to
clearly document things that are useful to others, then they have some
value there. Maybe - and this is just an unsupported hypothesis -
folks at IETF are more comfortable (or efficient, or motivated) with
writing things that are called "documents" rather than "web pages"
(even when there's no difference in actual content). And moving the
same information to "ordinary" web pages would probably mean creating
some sort of structure (e.g. header for distinguishing draft and
approved
versions with some kind of standard header) and processes (for e.g.
approval).
However, how to organize web pages is a topic where I think
micromanagement (from e.g. me) would not be very productive. If
useful information gets communicated in effective fashion, I'm OK
with letting the IESG to choose the tools they use for maintaining
things on the web, and don't really mind whether they get called
"IONs", "wikis", or just "web pages".
Best regards,
Pasi
-----Original Message-----
From: ext The IESG [mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: 16 January, 2008 21:41
To: IETF Announcement list
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)iesg(_dot_)org
Subject: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
RFC 4693, Section 4 says:
This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months,
starting from the date of the first ION published using this
mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a
call for comments from the community, asking for people to state
their agreement to one of the following statements (or a
suitable reformulation thereof):
According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/
the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment
ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the
call for comments.
Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been
valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf