Hi Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:52 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Call for Community Input: Web Analytics on www.ietf.org > > 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.. Agreed. {tools, datatracker}.ietf would be next steps if the current approach proves itself on the smaller scope of www.ietf. > 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)? The details on how Matomo approaches page generation can be found here: https://matomo.org/docs/page-speed/ The implementation choice between tracking API and Javascript will constrain how the measurement is done. > 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? This is likely possible with the tool, but isn't considered in scope for this proposal. Roman > 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-forRevi > >> ew.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/
