From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> Sent: 15 July 2024 10:31 Am 15.07.2024 um 12:03 schrieb tom petch: > ... > <tp> > The server is whatever the IETF is using for e.g. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer/ > This is probably a shadow rather than the real web site which I suspect cannot be accessed with Windows from my PC because of the way the IETF works. I don't get that. What do you mean by "shadow" and "because of the way the IETF works"? <tp> By shadow I mean that for many if not most widely used web sites, there are shadow sites elsewhere in the world which are closer to concentrations of users e.g there might be a European shadow (or several) for a much used site in California and while the aim is for the shadow to be kept up to date. at times I assume to be of stress, the updates lag behind. This symptom has started to happen with the IETF mailing lists. I logon on Sunday and there is no e-mail from Saturday. Logon on Monday and there is e-mail from Saturday and Sunday. Where has it been? I suspect on the IETF web sites but the shadow sites are not up to date I see this on a number of low activity (perhaps 2-3 posts p.d.) WG lists. I do not see it on the more active lists such as IPv6. IDR. I do see it for other organsations as well. The Internet is not what it was 20 years ago- less trustworthy, less reliable. It used to be possible to bypass shadow sites and access the real McCoy but I think that that has been removed by ISPs. However, my point relates accessing the plain text version of an I-D either from the IETF announcement or from a IETF WG website so I can read it, download it and edit it using a simple, reliable toolset. The HTML version fails this requirement Tom Petch > The user agent is > Firefaox 121.0 (64 bit) > The file format is whatever the IETF is using for the above draft when I select > Formats HTML - the result contains so much cruft as to render work impractical e.g. below (the hyphens being separators I have added). > ... And what does this have to do with http(s) as protocol? It seems you don't like the HTML format of internet drafts and RFCs, but that's an entirely different issue... Best regards, Julian
