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@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:02 PM To: Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Crocker Cc: Mark Allman; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Introducing the ID tracker On Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:37 PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin <smb@RESEARCH.ATT.COM> allegedly wrote: > In message <197230670977.20021106153345@tribalwise.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