I agree that tools and datatracker should be included; while the "main" site is important, they are the critical resources that most people interact with. For performance monitoring, are we going to be measuring the server-side view of page generation time, or from the client (i.e. using RUM)? Collecting errors -- e.g., JavaScript exceptions, those reported by CSP and similar facilities -- is extremely useful for finding problems on the site. Will we be doing that? Cheers, > On 21 May 2019, at 4:27 pm, Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 21 May 2019, Roman Danyliw wrote: > >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/docs/www.ietf.org-AnalyticsProposal-forReview.pdf >> >> The IESG appreciates any input from the community on this proposal and will consider all input received by June 4, 2019. > > I'm a bit confused that tools.ietf.org is not included. It's where I go > mostly to read RFCs. (in fact, I google "rfc XXX tools" to not get any > ancient www.ietf.org text versions but the proper html version on > tools.ietf.org". > >> Providing a publicly-available summary of analytics data will be explored. > > Since I'm part of the data collection, it makes sense to me to see the > end summary. I see no reason this should be restricted to the IESG and > IETF Secretariat - unless you don't trust your anonymization ? > > Otherwise, the plan looks fine to me. > > Paul > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
