Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Brian;
On Dec 15, 2006, at 5:03 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public comment
on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list. Comments should be sent by 2006-12-31.
You don't say to where comments should be sent, so I am sending this to
the IETF list.
Um, that is why the note refers to this list.
In this ION, there is
HTTP Access to IONs
The IONs can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions
The standard HTTP URL for the current version of this document would
then be "http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ion-store.html";, and
the stable URL to the dated version would be "http://www.ietf.org/
IESG/content/ions/dated/ion-ion-store-2006-07-23.html".
HTTP Access to Drafts
Drafts open for public comments can be downloaded with HTTP at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts
Both of these URLs point to "naked" directory lists, which only give
the file name and the date. This means of
archiving documents does not scale; I would recommend at least a small
index.html file at those sites, with at least
- the link to the file
- a brief description of each ION
- its date
and probably an IPR statement or link to the Note Well at the bottom.
Possibly, but we want to stay informal (see the last but one sentence
in ion-ion-store).
This would scale up to a few dozen IONs, which would take a
while.
Well, my thought is that the plain directory does scale for a few dozen,
but not beyond. I agree that at some point an index is needed. I built an
index manually at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/opNotes.html for
the pre-existing notes. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
If you want, I could prepare a mock-up of this for the 3 existing drafts.
What we would need is a tool to update it automatically. And I'm not sure
we want to do that for an experiment (but if you feel the coding urge,
don't hold back ;-).
Thanks
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf