+1. Wish I had more time to contribute to this subject. -- HLS On 10/23/2014 12:51 PM, t.p. wrote:
The IETF I see using an increasing variety of technology without, AFAICT, offering enough guidance for me to be able to use it. So I go to the main IETF website and search on: jabber - yes, this takes me to a useful web page, that one is fine github - yields a lengthy list of e-mails which I do not understand. The github website is accessible but is also over my head. If the work of WGs is going to rely on this, which I see signs of on several lists, then it would be good to see an equivalent of RFC2629, or perhaps RFC4677, on this. (But I note that the github website says that there is no support for IE8 so that is academic, for me, pro tem). meetecho - ditto, but I think irrelevant to most participants in the work of the IETF so it does not matter that the website is inaccessible using IE from any IT facilities I have regular access to! The URLs that appear in the IETF mailing lists relating to this are also inaccessible. I wonder if there is a particular TLS requirement underlying this. etherpad - ditto, but I think irrelevant to a participant in the work of the IETF via a mailing list webex -ditto but perhaps relevant. Here the website is inaccessible using IE - http 403 - but there is a Cisco branded website which is accessible, with more information. It does say that Windows XP and IE7 are supported - as they should be! - but also talks of a download being required which begs the question, what is the download, what system requirements does it have? Does it require Windows Administrator privileges?. The website also says things like the person setting up the meeting decides, e.g., whether or not VoIP will or will not be supported, not not the sort of thing I see mentioned within the IETF. IRC popped up this week "IRC is fine, and should be used as a tool to create the meeting minutes". Here a search leads to the RFC - naturally, which is sort of good but not much use to an end user if it is a tool with which we are meant to participate. 'webex' reminds me of my last attempt to participate remotely, when the IT facilities that I could customise were limited to 56kbps dial-up and the minimum that the IETF would support was 64kbps, while the IT support for the IT facilities that I could use with a higher speed were clear that they did not support the technology of the IETF (which probably meant that they had never heard of it). But on that occasion I had the information with which to progress the issue, whereas for the ones I detail above, I lack that basic information. It is one thing to help make the Internet work better - it is something else to have to use the results:-( Tom Petch