On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:17 PM Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:39 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:50 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:30 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/7/19 9:52 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 06:13:08AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Dear IESG: can you report on the status of that project and when the
>> tools/datatracker sites will show inline errata?
> My understanding is that the code is done and waiting to be deployed.
>
> Alissa's note at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QDuj5ItTcY5nbVQVp7FMRjZiSZY may
> be the most authoritative thing I can point to right now.
This is currently in the rfc-editor's hands (as their plan is to deploy
it on the rfc-editor website).I certainly agree it would be good to deploy it on the rfc-editor web site, but lots of people go to datatracker and tools, so that shouldn't hold up deploying it on the IETF sites.Deploying it on rfc-editor.org seems fine, but of very little value compared to datatracker and tools. Google, for example, seems to stick to the following ranking when you search "RFC XXXX":(And indeed, sometimes puts other RFCs before rfc-editor.org, e.g.., https://www.google.com/search?q=rfc+5280)Google, FOR YOU, ranks the search results as above.There is no such thing anymore as a generic de novo naive search result from Google. What you get will very probably be different than what I get.
Do you in fact get results different from the above?
--Richard
As an added benefit, datatracker and tools are controlled by the IESG, so the changes can be deployed there without needing to trouble the RFC editor.--Richard-Ekr
RjS
>
> -Ben
>
--Clint Chaplin
Senior Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America
