> On 16 Sep 2021, at 6:34 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-09-16, at 10:31, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> We already have a large number of places that people need to look for data. Adding another is not optimal, especially when the purpose of the tool is collaborative editing, NOT long-term reference. > > Sure. I just don’t know how crippling notes.ietf.org will help with Google docs, hackmd.io, and all these other places. Actually, it will drive people back to those. I have so many questions :) Why is it an issue that people use those other services for scratch documents? If temporary documents aren't appropriate, what guarantees do you need regarding archival storage, reliability, availability, etc? Why does the IETF have to run this service, instead of relying on a third party? How do these now long-lived documents interact with RFCs, Internet-Drafts, Datatracker and meeting proceedings (the various sources of truth we currently have)? In particular, when someone references a document there and presumes it's IETF-sanctioned? Who determines that it's worth the cost of providing such a long-lived service? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
