Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> the Web site design is from a much earlier era when people
> accessed the web from 14K dial up and web site designers were
> taught to only put five navigation options per web page.
My V.90 is not much better than 14K, and a Web design allowing
access with poor bandwidth is still perfection, also known as
"do as amazon does". The rfc-editor pages are generally fine.
There are of course ways to improve things, e.g. if I see an
interesting I-D I'd like to know where to send public comments
without "subscription" hurdles, and I'd like a way to track
its way through the iETF independent of minor changes like a
new document name (i.e. something like a PURL), etc.
> the RFC-Editor Queue information is really tracking the
> status of internet drafts, not RFCs.
It's only the POV of the rfc-editor, the IESG has its own POV.
They are different, where's the problem with this ? Merging
these state diagrams could be a dubious move, they are already
very convoluted.
I've never found out who or what "deadir" is, and I've no idea
who added a known to be harmful "RfC editor note" to a draft
I'm interested in. Maybe it's a bug in this tracker business.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf