On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially
for the user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups.
A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps
even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs.
I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is
static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be
visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC
content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion.
One of the assumptions here is that discussion without editorial
discretion can add color to static informaion. While the case for that
can certainly be made, we have abundant evidence of it not doing so in
the context of ietf mailing lists.
we have abundant evidence of there being color added in the context of ietf
mailing lists. problem is, there's a lot more than color added there.
a wiki is a different medium than email. because people can alter and even
delete contributions by others, there's some tendency to try to compromise in
order to minimize change wars. admittedly, it's an imperfect tendency.
RFC's (WG documents in general) are the editorial filter through which
we pass/preserve the contributed discussion that is deemed informative.
this is not true of WG documents in general, which are often quite biased and
occasionally one-sided.
as for RFCs, there's a lot of overhead associated with them, which is part of
why IETF has a difficult time keeping its documents current.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf